►  JUL    2    1968 

3X7148 
.C8T7 


LETTERS 


TO    THE 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON, 


IN  KEPLY  TO  HIS  ATTACK  ON  THE 


PASTORAL  UNION  AND  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTE  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


/ 
By    Rev.    GEORGE    A.    CALHOUN, 

Pastor  of  the  Church  in  North  Coventry,  Conn. 


HARTFORD. 
FOR    SALE    BY    ELIHU    GEER,    26*    S  T  AT  E  .  ST  R  E  E  T. 

HDCCCXL. 


CONTENTS 


raft. 
LETTER  I. — Occasion  of  the  Correspondence.  Letter  to  tlie  Editor  of  the  New  Haven 
Record.  Editor's  reply.  The  Pastoral  Union  arraigned  for  trial  by  Mr.  Bacon.  Mr.  B. 
responsible  for  the  discussion.  Striking  resemblance  between  him  and  the  anonymous 
correspondent  of  the  Record.  Mr.  Bacon's  method  of  promoting  harmony  ;  viz.  by  attack- 
ing Dr.  Nettleton  and  the  Pastoral  Union.     .  .  .  .  .  .  .3 

LETTER  II. — General  Association.  Anonymous  censure  of  its  members  justified  by  Mr. 
B.  New  School  Assembly.  Reason  of  Mr.  B's  forgetfulness  of  what  occurred  at  Dan- 
bury.  Unjust  to  make  persons  responsible  for  what  they  disclaim.  Mr.  B's  charge  of 
Jacobinism.  Sneer  at  the  name  of  Edwards.  Mr.  B's  charge  of  prayerful  calumny 
against  the  Ministers  of  the  East  Windsor  Convention.         .  .  •  •  T 

LETTER  III.— Pastoral  Union.  Grew  out  of  an  attempt  to  subvert  N.  E.  Calvinism.  Its 
object  important,  its  measures  peaceable  and  Scriptural.  Mr.  B's  protest  against  the  Pro- 
test,  fails  of  disclosing  "the  root  and  essence  of  existing  difficulties."  Difference  between 
the  New  Haven  divines  and  their  opponents,  not  trifling.  So  thought  Griffin,  Cornelius, 
and  others.  Mr.  B's  awkward  apology  for  Dr.  Taylor ;  viz.  The  more  he  writes,  the  more 
sure  he  is  to  be  misunderstood.  A  luminary  shedding  darkness  !  No  apology  for  theolo- 
gical error,  that  it  springs  from  speculative  dogmas.  The  most  destructive  heresies  have 
been  defended  in  this  way.  Proof  that  Dr.  Taylor  regards  the  differences  between  new  and 
old  divinity,  of  great  importance.  He  represents  the  sentiments  of  the  orthodox  as  involv- 
ing by  legitimate  consequence  the  worst  of  heresies.  His  remedy  for  existing  evils  ;  viz. 
that  the  orthodox  give  up  their  principles.      .  .  .  .  •  •  .12 

LETTER  IV.— Had  the  Pastoral  Union  a  right  to  protest?  This  right  claimed  by  Mr. 
Bacon  and  Dr.  Taylor.  The  N.  H.  divines,  friends  to  free  discussion  on  one  side  only. 
Dr.  Taylor  at  Philadelphia.  Why  the  Protest  was  not  made  by  the  Gen.  Association.  If 
the  Gen.  Ass.  neglected  their  duty,  no  reason  why  the  P.  U.  should  neglect  theirs.  The 
Protest.  Errors  specified  prevail  extensively.  Dr.  Taylor  not  understood  !  !  !  Questions 
answered  by  questions.  Art.  1st.  of  the  Protest  vindicated.  The  error  condemned  relates 
to  the  power  of  God.  The  real  question  stated.  Can  God  so  govern  moral  agents  as  to 
secure  universal  holiness  ?  Dr.  Taylor  thinks  the  affirmative  involves  univcrsalism,  infi- 
delity and  atheism.     Evasion  exposed.     Dr.  Griffin's  opinion  of  this  error.  .  .     19 

LETTER  V. — Art.  2d.  Concerning  the  native  character  of  man.  The  N.  H.  divines  hold 
that  infants  and  brute  animals,  in  regard  to  moral  character,  stand  on  the  same  ground. 
Their  history  of  an  infant  from  birth,  (a  long  period.)  to  the  commencement  of  its  native 
depravity  ! !  Propensities  to  sin,  shown  not  to  be  innocent  propensities.  Infants  with  no 
moral  character,  do  not  need  redemption  or  regeneration.  Dr.  Emmons,  Dr.  Hopkins, 
and  Dr.  Wood's  shown  not  to  have  maintained  the  sentiments  imputed  to  them  by  Mr.  B. 
Art  3J.  The  principle  and  end  of  human  actions.  Not  strange  that  the  language  of  the 
N.  II.  divines  should  be  understood  to  teach  that  every  man  acts  from  supreme  self  love. 
Brainerd's  alarm  at  this  doctrine.     Absurd  ideas  on  this  subject  noticed  by  Edwards.         .    27 

LETTER  VI.— Art.  4th.  Change  of  heart.  Dr.  Taylor's  account  of  regeneration  by  self- 
love.  Prof.  Stuart's  comment  on  the  same.  The  orthodox  not  to  be  shaken  by  sarcasm. 
Art.  5th.  Agency  of  the  Spirit.  Mr.  B's  impeachment  of  Dr.  Tyler's  veracity.  The  doc- 
trine of  direct  divine  efficiency.  According  to  the  N.  H.  divines  there  is  no  change  of 
principle,  or  internal  motive,  in  regeneration.  Art.  6th.  Special  grace.  A  calumniou* 
insinuation  repelled.     Mr.  B.  fails  to  sustain  his  views  by  an  appeal  to  Dwight.     .  .     36 

LETTER  VII.— Art.  7th.  Election.  Equivocal  language  employed  by  those  who  adopt 
the  new  divinity.  They  hold  that  God  does  not  make  all  holy  and  happy,  because  he 
cannot.  Mr.  B's  disrespectful  treatment  of  Dr.  Dana.  Errors  subversive  of  the  faith  of 
the  churches  prior  to  the  formation  of  the  Pastoral  Union.     Reminiscences  of  consulta- 


IV  CONTENTS. 

tions  at  Andovjr  in  1829  and  183Q.  Dr.  Wood's  questions  to  Dr.  Taylor.  Mr.  B.  called 
upon  to  answer  them.  Changes  rung  on  the  term  ''heretic."  Pastoral  Union  not  to  be 
held  responsible  for  what  tiiey  disapprove.     .  .  .  .  .  .  .44 

LETTER  VIII. — Mr.  B's  attack  on  Dr.  Ncttlcton.  His  charges  shown  to  be  groundless. 
A  brief  view  of  Dr.  N's  labors  from  1811  to  1822,  when  he  was  brought  to  the  borders  of 
the  grave  by  typhus  fever.  His  early  dissatisfaction  with  the  N.  H.  theology.  His  convic- 
tion of  its  tendency  to  corrupt  revivals  and  produce  spurious  conversions.  His  expostu- 
lations with  the  N.  H.  divines.  His  testimony  against  their  errors.  Means  used  to  destroy 
his  influence.  Threat  to  hew  him  down.  Noted  slander  at  Enfield  examined.  Dr.  N's 
labors  from  1825  to  1835.  His  opposition  to  new  measures.  Testimonial  of  Drs.  Beecher, 
Hawcs,  and  others.     ..........     52 

LETTER  IX.— Correspondence  with  the  Editor  of  the  Record.  Theological  Department 
of  Yale  College.  Alleged  proceedings  of  the  Corporation.  Doubtful  parentage  of  a  cer- 
tain anonymous  document.  The  Theological  Institute  closely  allied  to  the  churches. 
Members  of  the  P.  U.  friends  to  Yale  College.  Questions  touching  the  theological  depart- 
ment of  Yale  College.  Its  party  aspect.  Creeds.  Why  a  new  one  was  adopted  by  the 
P.  U.  Comparison  between  their  creed  and  that  of  the  church  in  Y.  College.  Disparage- 
ment of  creeds  by  friends  of  new  divinity.  Why  was  the  confession  of  Mr.  B's  church 
altered  ?  Their  old  one  not  conformed  to  new  divinity.  Religious  periodical  press  in 
Conn.  Till  recently  in  favor  of  sound  theology.  Religious  Intelligencer.  Christian 
Spectator.  Connecticut  Observer.  Proof  that  there  was  an  organized  party  in  the  State 
before  the  P.  U.  was  formed.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .61 

LETTER  X. — Tract  Society.  Evangelical  Magazine.  Conference  at  Hartford.  Conven- 
tion at  East  Windsor.  How  called.  Constitution  of  P.  U.  and  Theol.  Institute.  Why 
membership  by  election.  Corporation  of  Yale  College.  Reasons  for  establishing  the 
Theol.  Institute.     The  Institute  connected  with  the  churches,         .  .  .  .71 

LETTER  XL— Gen.  Association  at  Vernon.  Notice  of  the  Theological  Institute.  Cen- 
sure of  the  Middlasex  Association.  Proposal  to  reprint  the  Saybrook  Platform.  Opposi- 
tion to  the  proposal.  Gen.  Association  at  Enfield.  Reply  to  Mr.  B's  questions.  P.  U.  not 
formed  for  the  purpore  of  "putting  down"  any  of  their  brethren.  New  school  does  not 
embrace  a  majority  of  pastors  in  the  State.  Alleged  tendency  of  the  P.  U.  to  division. 
Extract  of  a  letter  to  Dr.  Sprague.  Extract  from  Dr.  Tyler's  Inaugural  Address.  What 
ought  to  be  done  ?      .  .  .  ,  ,  t  ,  t  m  .80 


N.  B.  The  letters  of  Mr.  Bacon,  to  which  the  following  are  a  reply,  first  appeared  in  the  New 
Haven  Record,  but  have  since  been  published  in  a  pamphlet.  The  "first  eight  of  these  letters 
were  also  published  in  the  same  paper.  The  remainder  are  now  for  the  first  time  given  to  the 
public.  The  reasons  why  they  have  not  appeared  in  the  Record,  will  be  stated  at  the  beginning 
of  the  ninth  letter. 


Uttttv  *♦ 

Rev.  Leonard  Bacon, — 

Dear  Sir  —  In  your  letters  addressed  to  me,  through  the  medium  of  the 
Record,  you  have  taken  such  an  extensive  range,  and  introduced  so  many  and 
various  topics  to  the  consideration  of  your  readers,  that  it  seems  needful  we 
should  return  to  the  immediate  occasion  of  this  discussion.  And  for  this  pur- 
pose I  introduce  the  following  letters. 

"  To  the  Editor  of  the  New  Haven  Record. 

"  Dear  Sir, — It  appears  that  a  correspondent  of  your  paper,  in  the  number 
issued  the  next  after  the  late  meeting  of  the  General  Association  of  Connec- 
ticut, has  professed  to  give  an  account  of  the  discussion  which  occurred  in  the 
Association,  on  the  reception  of  delegates  from  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  I  have  read  with  deep  regret  portions  of  that  article, 
which  have  been  quoted  by  the  New  York  Evangelist,  and  the  Connecticut 
Observer.  Will  you  be  so  good,  Sir,  as  to  send  me  a  copy  of  the  number  of 
your  paper  containing  that  article?  And  I  shall  be  obliged,  if  you  will  in- 
form me  whether,  (if  it  should  be  desired,)  a  reply  to  that  article,  with  the 
name  of  the  writer,  can  be  inserted  in  the  Record,  on  the  condition,  that  it  shall 
not  be  answered,  except  with  the  name  of  the  person  answering  it. 

As  you  must  be  fully  aware,  Sir,  your  correspondent  has  not  only  brought 
against  me  and  the  worthy  brethren  who  voted  with  me  in  the  General  Asso- 
ciation, very  serious  accusations,  but  he  has  thrown  out  insinuations  calculated 
to  prejudice  the  public  mind  against  the  Theological  Institute  of  Connecticut, 
I  think  the  cause  of  Christ  demands  that  the  writer  of  that  communication 
should  be  known,  that  there  may  be,  (should  it  be  judged  expedient,)  a  private 
correspondence  with  him.  Will  you  inform  me  who  wrote  that  article  ?  I 
should  have  written  you,  on  this  subject,  at  an  earlier  date,  but  did  not  know, 
till  recently,  that  such  an  account  of  the  discussion  in  the  General  Association 
had  been  published.  "  I  am  yours  respectfully, 

"  GEORGE  A.  CALHOUN. 

"  Coventry,  July  26,  1839." 

"  New  Haven,  July  30,  1839. 
"  Rev.  George  A.  Calhoun,  — 

"  Dear  Sir  —  Yours  of  the  26th  was  duly  received.  With  this,  in  reply, 
I  shall  at  the  same  time  put  in  the  mail  the  No.  of  the  Record  which  you  re- 
quested might  be  sent,  together  with  the  No.  for  last  week,  which  contains  a 
reply  to  some  remarks  in  the  Congregationalist.  I  entertain  the  hope,  that, 
after  seeing  the  whole  of  the  first  article,  together  with  the  explanations  in 
the  second,  you  will  find  that  it  is  not  what  you  have  supposed  it  to  be.  If, 
however,  it  should  appear  to  you  that  there  is  in  the  account  any  mis-state- 
ment of  facts,  or  any  misrepresentation  injurious  to  yourself,  or  those  who 


4  LETTERS    TO    THE 

acted  with  you  at  the  meeting  of  the  Association,  I  shall  most  willingly  pub- 
lish any  correction  which  you  may  think  necessary.  Or,  if  you  should  wish 
to  make  a  statement  of  the  views  under  which  you  acted,  in  pursuing  the 
course  you  did,  I  should  not  object  to  having  the  Record  made  the  medium  of 
such  explanation.  Any  communication  confined  to  these  objects,  and  within 
reasonable  bounds  as  to  length,  will  be  cheerfully  inserted. 

"  I  am  authorized  by  the  writer  of  the  article  in  question  to  say,  that  if  a 
reply,  with  the  name  of  the  writer,  should  be  published  in  the  Record,  he 
would  not  answer  it  except  under  his  own  name,  if  desired  ;  and  if,  after 
reading  the  articles  already  published,  you  should  think  it  best  to  have  a  pri- 
vate correspondence  with  him,  his  name  will  be  given  for  that  purpose,  at 
your  request.  For  myself,  I  shall  endeavor  to  do  whatever  impartial  justice 
may  require  in  the  case,  and  should  certainly  be  very  loth  to  be  any  way  un- 
necessarily the  means  of  aggravating  the  disagreement  which  unhappily  ex- 
ists among  the  ministers  and  churches  of  our  denomination  in  this  State. 
"  Respectfully  yours, 

"SAMUEL  PORTER, 

"  Editor  of  the  New  Haven  Record." 


The  restriction  imposed  on  me,  to  confine  my  communication  to  the  cor- 
rection of  "  mis-statement  of  facts,"  "  misrepresentation  injurious,"  and  to  an 
explanation  "  of  the  views  under  which  I  acted  "  in  the  Association,  I  did  not 
consider  unreasonable,  nor  was  it  unwelcome.  I  suppose,  that  while  the  Ed- 
itor of  the  Record  would  "  endeavor  to  do  whatever  impartial  justice  might 
require  in  the  case,"  he  designed  to  prevent  his  paper  from  becoming  the  me- 
dium of  a  protracted,  agitating,  and  painful  controversy  ;  and  that  he  would 
by  no  means  suffer  it  to  be  the  instrument  of  attack  on  a  large  body  of  Pas- 
tors of  Connecticut  churches,  or  institutions  dear  to  many  of  the  friends  of 
God,  and  on  private  character.  The  course  which  I  thought  he  was  marking 
out  for  himself,  I  highly  approved. 

As  a  member  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  I  should  rejoice  to  have  a  knowledge 
of  the  formation  of  that  body,  and  of  all  their  subsequent  acts,  diffused  through 
the  land.  And  notwithstanding  the  intimations  you  have  given  to  the 
contrary,  none  of  their  proceedings  have  been  concealed  from  the  public  view. 
And  though  they  dispute  your  authority,  on  Congregational  principles,  to  ar- 
raign them  for  trial,  putting  "  questions  "  to  them  "  earnestly,"  and  demand- 
ing "  uneqivocal  answers ";  yet,  I  am  persuaded,  they  would  esteem  it  a 
privilege  to  have  their  conduct  more  extensively  and  correctly  understood  by 
the  Christian  public.  But  to  me  the  present  appears  to  be  an  unfavorable 
time  for  commencing  a  newspaper  discussion,  of  the  character  of  the  one  now 
begun,  which  of  course  will  be  but  a  review  and  revival  of  the  controversies 
of  our  denomination  for  fifteen  years  past,  and  may  in  the  result  increase, 
rather  than  diminish,  existing  difficulties.  Aside  from  theological  differences, 
the  ministry  and  the  churches  are  agitated  with  various  and  weighty  topics  of 
public  interest ;  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  manifested  in  the  convic- 
tion and  conversion  of  sinners,  is  in  a  great  measure  withdrawn,  and  the  stand- 
ard of  practical  religion  is  quite  depressed  :  could  not  this  debate,  on  subjects 
so  various  and  exciting,  have  been  avoided  ?  At  least,  could  it  not  have  been 
confined  principally  to  "the  schools,"  and  found  only  on  the  pages  of  quarterly 
periodicals,  and  not  have  been  introduced  to  the  consideration  of  all  the  read- 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  5 

ers  of  a  religious  newspaper?  That  there  are  differences  existing  between 
the  Congregational  ministers  and  churches  of  Connecticut,  and  differences 
which  many  great,  good  and  holy  men  believe  to  be  radical,  can  not  be  de- 
nied. In  this  respect  the  frowns  of  God  are  upon  us,  and  we  have  reason  to 
fear  that  evils  which  these  differences  have  produced,  will  not  be  remedied 
for  generations  to  come.  Yet  could  not  this  discussion  have  been  avoided  ? 
Brethren  of  the  New  Haven  school,  will  doubtless  continue  to  take  their  own 
course  in  promulgating  their  peculiar  sentiments,  and  they,  who  do  not  harmon- 
ize with  them  in  theological  views,  will  probably  continue  to  feel,  that  they 
must  obey  the  dictates  of  their  consciences.  And  why  could  we  not  suffer 
it  thus  to  be,  without  the  disturbance,  which  the  present  discussion  must  pro- 
duce ? 

The  correspondent  of  the  Record,  in  giving  his  account  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  General  Association  at  Danbury,  must  needs  anonymously  attack,  (and# 
in  the  judgment  of  disinterested  persons,  and  persons  too  whose  theological 
sympathies  are  with  him.)  severely  attack,  members  of  that  body.  As  one  of 
the  oldest  thus  assailed,  in  self-defence,  and  in  defence  of  the  worthy  brethren 
who  acted  with  me,  I  considered  it  my  duty,  with  my  name  annexed,  to  cor- 
rect the  mistakes  of  that  writer.  And  you,  my  brother,  came  forward  with 
great  promptness  —  even  before  my  manuscript  was  published  —  not  only  to 
justify  that  attack,  but  to  seize  on  the  occasion  which  it  offered,  for  arraigning 
before  the  public  all  the  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union  ;  and  to  secure  the 
attention,  and  to  interest  the  feelings  of  all  the  Congregational  ministers  of 
Connecticut,  I  understand  copies  of  the  Record,  containing  your  letters,  were 
forwarded  to  them  gratuitously.  In  your  first  letter,  you  say  :  "  The  occa- 
sion seems  to  me  favorable  for  commencing  a  discussion,  which  I  hope  will  be 
conducted  not  only  with  mutual  kindness  and  good  temper,  but  with  an  earnest 
desire  on  both  sides  to  remove  misunderstanding,  and  unite  the  ministers  of 
Connecticut  more  strongly  than  ever,  in  those  ties  which  seem  in  danger  of 
disruption."  And  in  the  second  letter  you  say :  "  I  ask  these  questions,  (res- 
pecting the  Pastoral  Union,)  because  I  think  it  high  time  they  were  asked 
earnestly,  and  answered  unequivocally.  I  ask  these  questions,  because  I  fear 
that  some  of  the  founders  and  leaders  of  that  organization  have  not  sufficient- 
ly considered  what  they  are  doing." 

And  now,  Dear  Sir,  in  however  many  particulars  we  may  entertain 
different  views,  in  this  one  we  are  surely  agreed  ;  that  you  have  assumed  the 
responsibility  of  commencing  this  discussion.  And  should  it  result  in  restor- 
ing to  the  ministry  and  churches  even  of  Connecticut  former  agreement  in 
sentiment,  holy  living,  and  harmonious  action,  you  shall  be  recognized  as  an 
honored  instrument  in  the  hand  of  God.  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  should  oc- 
casion an  unprofitable  diversion  of  our  brethren  in  the  ministry  from  their 
appropriate  work  in  winning  souls  to  Chrst ;  if  it  should  agitate  and  distress 
the  churches  more  than  they  have  yet  been  agitated  and  distressed  ;  if  it 
should  inflict  wounds  on  individuals  and  augment  existing  alienations  ;  if  it 
should  contribute  to  the  accomplishment  of  that  disruption  of  which  you 
speak :  you  must  not  shrink  from  an  endurance  of  the  weighty  and  solemn 
responsibility  which  you  have  assumed.  This  discussion  was  not  commenced 
by  the  "  East  Windsor  brethren,"  and  if  the  peace  of  the  ministry  and  the 
churches  is  more  disturbed  in  consequence  of  it,  they  must  not  be  represented 
as  disturbers  of  the  peace.  And  it  will  be  borne  in  mind,  that  it  was  not  com- 
menced by  myself.  So  far  from  desiring  a  newspaper  debate  of  this  descrip- 
tion, it  is  but  recently  that  I  was  constrained  to  feel  it  my  duty  to  make  any 


fl  LETTERS    TO    THE 

reply  to  the  Letters  addressed  to  me.  And  allow  me  to  state,  that  for  the 
reply  which  I  make,  I  am  alone  responsible.  1  am  not  authorized  to  write  as 
the  organ  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  and  desire  that  no  one  but  myself  be  held 
accountable  for  what  I  communicate. 

If  it  is  indeed  "high  time  that  questions"  respecting  the  Pastoral  Union 
"  were  asked  earnestly,  and  answered  unequivocally ;"  I  rejoice  that  we 
have  the  name  of  the  interrogator,  though  his  signature  should  give  much 
additional  influence  to  his  communications.  This  is  as  it  should  be.  The  per- 
son, who  accuses  publicly  should  make  himself  known  to  the  public,  and  to 
the  public  stand  accountable  for  his  accusations.  And  permit  me  to  inquire, 
would  it  not  have  been  more  honorable  had  the  correspondent  of  the  Record 
published  his  name  with  his  censures  of  his  brethren  '(  And  when  he  was  in- 
formed, that  he  had  given  offence,  and  that  his  name  was  requested  ;  had  he 
•  allowed  it  to  be  published  without  delay,  would  it  not  have  been  more  con- 
sonant with  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel  and  a  Christian  spirit,  than  to  have 
authorized  the  Editor  to  say :  "  Should  you  think  best  to  have  a  private 
correspondence  with  him,  his  name  will  be  given  for  that  purpose  at  your  re- 
quest." You,  sir,  inform  me,  "  you  shall  not  put  yourself  in  the  place  of  the 
correspondent  of  the  Record."  And  I  shall  not  put  you  there.  But  your 
very  prompt,  and  efficient  efforts  to  sustain  him  — justifying  him  in  every  par- 
ticular, except  the  selection  of  one  word  —  and  the  striking  resemblance  be- 
tween him  and  yourself  in  style  of  writing,  in  remembrance  of  facts,  in  sen- 
timents, in  sympathy  are  such  ;  you  will  pardon  me,  if  through  inadvertence, 
I  should  fail  to  distinguish  in  all  cases  the  productions  of  the  one  from  those  of 
the  other. 

The  hope  has  been  expressed,  that  this  discussion  might  be  "  conducted  not 
only  with  mutual  kindness  and  good  temper,  but  with  an  earnest  desire  on 
both  sides  to  remove  misunderstanding."  To  me  it  is  doubtful  whether  this 
hope  will  be  realized.  Persons  conducting  such  discussions  are  strongly 
tempted  to  the  exercise  and  expression  of  unkindness  and  ill-temper.  And 
should  it  be  judged,  that  you  have  been  delivered  from  the  temptation  thus 
far,  you  surely  would  have  occasion  for  gratitude.  How  I  shall  succeed  in 
this  particular,  I  cannot  predict,  much  less  promise.  1  am  not  like  yourself, 
accustomed  to  the  circumstances  in  which  I  am  placed,  as  I  have  never  ap- 
peared before  the  public  in  the  character  of  a  controversialist.  And  you  are 
aware  that  your  communications  have  presented  an  unpleasant  aspect  to  the 
persons  against  whom  they  were  directed,  and  that  the  author  of  them  was 
not  in  so  great  danger  of  irritation,  as  the  person  is,  who  answers  them. 
And  should  I  err  in  some  small  degree  by  manifesting  a  wounded  spirit,  I  beg 
that,  among  others,  the  following  provocations  may  bo  duly  considered. 

1.  The  Rev.  Asahel  Nettleton  is  a  brother  with  whom  I  have  long  been  inti- 
mately acquainted  ;  for  whom,  on  account  of  his  knowledge  of  the  revealed  will 
of  God  and  the  character  of  the  human  heart,  I  have  great,  respect ;  —  in  whose 
judgment  in  religious  concerns,  prudence,  conscientious  regard  to  principle. 
and  self-denying  spirit  I  have  great  confidence  ;  and  who  is  highly  esteemed 
by  those  who  harmonize  with  him  in  their  views  of  divine  truth.  That  minis- 
ter of  Jesus  Christ,  that  friend  endeared  to  me  by  many  considerations,  you 
have  held  up  to  public  view,  as  the  great  agitator  of  the  Congregational  and 
Presbyterian  denominations,  the  preeminent  disturber  of  the  peace  of  Zion. 
"Whether  one  member  suffer  all  the  members  suffer  with  it."  Must  not  the 
friends  and  brethren  of  Mr.  Nettleton  feel  the  wound  ? 

2.  In  August  last,  friends  and  patrons  of  the  Theological   Institute,  to  aid 


UKV.    LEO.\ARU    BACOX 


that  Seminary,  commenced  the  enterprise  of  raising  fitly  thousand  dollars. 
Success  exceeded  their  expectations.  And  no  sooner  was  the  project,  and 
the  favor  with  which  it  was  countenanced,  announced  to  the  public,  than  you 
was  led  to  "  think  it  high  time  these  questions  (relating  to  the  Pastoral  Union 
to  whom  the  Institute  belongs,)  were  asked  earnestly  and  answered  unequiv- 
ocally." Is  not  this  a  singular  interference  ?  When  it  was  resolved  to  raise 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  the  benefit  of  Yale  College,  would  the 
friends  of  that  institution  have  been  pleased  with  a  like  interference  ?  When- 
ever Amherst  College,  or  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Andover,  have  appeal- 
ed to  the  public  for  pecuniary  aid,  has  there  been  a  like  interference  ?  When 
Williams  College  and  Amherst  College,  were  somewhat  rival  institutions,  did 
one  thus  interfere  with  the  concerns  of  the  other  ?  And  when  the  friends  of 
the  Theological  Department  in  Yale  College,  a  few  years  since,  were  about  to 
raise  funds  for  the  use  of  that  department,  did  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union 
just  then  "  think  it  high  time,"  through  the  medium  of  the  press,  "  to  ask  ques- 
tions earnestly  and  demand  that  they  be  answered  unequivocally  "?  If  in  this 
or  future  communications,  you  should  discover  some  indication  of  feeling,  or 
some  expression  of  severity,  pardon  the  offence,  and  believe  me  as  ever, 

Your  friend  and  brother, 

GEORGE  A.  CALHOUN. 
Coventry,  November  19,  1839. 


Hetter   O- 

j)ear  Sir  _  It  is  feared  that  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  the  General  Asso- 
ciation of  Connecticut  commenced  last  June.  Though  "  the  Norfolk  Resolu- 
tions "  which  were  drafted  by  Br.  Beecher,  introduced  by  yourself,  and 
passed  and  published  by  the  Association  in  1836,  were  severely  censured  by 
some  presses  in  this  country  and  in  Great  Britain  ;  never  before  this  year,  to 
my  knowledge,  were  members  of  that  body  selected,  and  for  their  delibera- 
tions and  actions  made  the  objects  of  a  partial  and  public  animadversion.  And 
are  our  brethren  hereafter,  when  they  act  in  the  Association,  to  have  their 
liberty  of  free  discussion  abridged  by  the  presence  of  anonymous  writers,  who 
will  color  and  publish  for  party  purposes  what  is  said  ?  It  is  doubted  whether 
a  person  for  any  purpose  possesses  a  right,  without  permission,  to  communi- 
cate to  the  public  the  acts,  much  less  the  debates  of  a  clerical  or  ecclesiastical 
body  •  especially  of  one,  who  themselves  publish  their  proceedings.  The 
communications  of  the  correspondent  of  the  Record  respecting  the  meeting  at 
Danbury  have  caused  much  evil.  They  have,  without  any  apparent  benefit, 
deeply  wounded  a  large  number  of  the  ministers  of  this  State.  And  though 
the  correspondent  may  say,  "  the  conduct  of  the  East-Windsor  brethren  in 
the  late  General  Association  does  not  look  well  on  paper  ;  hence  this  dissatis- 
faction with  the  narrative  which  I  thought  it  my  duty  to  give  ;"  yet  the 
wound  is  not  so  easily  healed.  And,  in  my  opinion,  great  injustice  has  been 
experienced  by  the  General  Association  collectively  in  consequence  of  these 
anonymous  articles  ;  and  still  more,  Sir,  by  your  justification  of  them.  On 
reading  what  has  been  recently  published  respecting  the  late  meetings  of  the 
General  Association,  especially  of  the  one  in  June  last ;  what  must  persons 
unacquainted  with  the  facts  in  the  case,  think  of  the  Congregational  ministers 


8  LETTERS    TO    THE 

of  Connecticut  ?  What  must  be  their  impressions  respecting  our  annual  meet- 
ings, and  of  our  qualifications  of  heart  to  perform  the  solemn  services  allotted 
us  as  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 

Although  there  are,  unhappily,  great  differences  between  us ;  although  I 
can  not,  after  the  sober  reflection  of  months,  approve  of  the  course  pursued 
by  the  majority,  or  of  expressions  employed  by  some  members  ;  yet  I  rejoice 
in  saying  that,  in  no  deliberative  assembly  engaged  in  animated  debate, 
have  I  ever  witnessed  more  Christian  courtesy,  or  less  in  manner  which  was 
censurable  And  as  I  have  an  opportunity  for  defending  myself,  and  those 
who  acted  with  me,  from  unmerited  reproach ;  so  I  feel  myself  bound  to 
express  great  respect  and  esteem  for  those  brethren,  who  strenuously  opposed 
what  I  deemed  the  better  way  ;  and  to  assert  that  our  discussions  have  not 
diminished,  but,  in  relation  to  individuals,  increased  that  respect  and  esteem. 
The  General  Association  of  Connecticut,  though  painfully  divided,  and  now 
perhaps  in  some  danger  of  being  rent  asunder,  has  thus  far  exhibited  a  char- 
acter, in  most  respects  worthy  of  imitation.  And  since  so  much  has  been 
injuriously  published  relating  to  the  meeting  at  Danbury  ;  were  I  sure  my 
"  silence  would  not  be  construed  into  acquiescence,"  I  would  pass  without 
notice  what  you  have  written  on  that  subject.  In  replying  to  your  First 
Letter,  therefore,  I  do  not  expect  to  occupy  much  time  or  space  respecting 
that  meeting ;  and  hence  I  shall  omit  statements  which  might  be  corrected. 

In' the  account  of  the  discussion  in  the  meeting  at  Danbury,  which  you, 
sir,  volunteered  to  defend,  the  minority  of  the  Association  were  accused  of 
"resisting  to  the  utmost  the  least  act  of  courtesy  toward  the  body  represented 
by  Dr.  Cox ;"  and  this  too  when  they  were  desirous  he  should  sit  and  delib- 
erate in  the  Association  as  a  corresponding  member,  and  had  united  with  oth- 
ers in  giving  him  the  invitation.  In  defence  of  this  serious  and  groundless 
accusation  you  say :  "  The  invitation  to  Dr.  Cox  to  sit  with  the  Association 
as  a  corresponding  member,  was  in  my  judgment  at  the  time  a  frivolous  thing." 
But  in  the  decision  of  this  question  whose  judgment  is  to  be  regarded  1 — 
Yours,  or  that  of  the  Association  ?  In  their  judgment  it  was  not  "  a  frivolous 
thing."  They  do  not  allow  themselves  to  be  engaged  in  what  they  consider 
"  frivolous  things."  The  invitation  was  moved  by  one  of  the  majority,  and 
it  was  designed  to  be  an  act  of  courtesy  toward  Dr.  Cox  and  the  body 
which  he  represented  ;  and  the  Association  were  harmonious  and  cheerful  in 
voting  it. 

So  soon  as  the  minority  discovered  in  the  majority  symptoms  of  a  disposi- 
tion to  treat  in  all  respects,  and  in  view  of  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
both  Assemblies  alike,  and  conduct  in  a  way,  which  it  was  hoped  would  be 
offensive  to  neither  ;  they  conceded.  —  In  opposition  to  this  declaration  you 
assert :  "  That  the  fact  was,  those  resolutions  were  opposed  by  one  of  the 
most  active  in  the  minority  expressly  on  the  ground  that  they  did  treat  both 
assemblies  alike."  Were  this  the  fact,  it  would  not  disprove  the  correctness 
of  the  declaration.  The  argument  of  an  individual,  during  a  protracted  dis- 
cussion, would  not  decide  what  was  the  action  of  the  minority.  But  I  am 
much  mistaken  if  you  have  not  erred  in  stating  the  fact.  In  1838  the  Asso- 
ciation as  "  usual  appointed  three  Delegates  to  the  General  Assembly, 
with  instructions  to  attend  its  session,  provided  the  General  Assembly  shall 
have  been  previously  ascertained  by  a  legal  decision."  Mr.  Cleaveland  of 
New-Haven  to  whom  you  doubtless  refer,  expressed  his  belief  that,  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  had  been  ascertained  by  a  legal  decision.  And  he  also  stated 
the  opinion  of  an  eminent  jurist  of  this  State  that,  "  the  Presbyterian  case" 


UEV.    LEONARD    BACON.  V 

xvould  not  1x5  farther  prosecuted.  He  hence  opposed  the  resolutions  because 
they  did  not  treat  both  Assemblies  alike,  when  consistency  with  the  course 
adopted  in  1838,  would  demand  a  recognition  ol' the  old  school  as  the  General 
Assembly.  It  would  be  strange  indeed,  sir,  if  the  minority  could  not  deter- 
mine as  accurately  their  principles  of  action  as  one,  who  was  a  mere  "  spec- 
tator of  the  proceedings  at  Banbury." 

You  say :  "  In  the  third  specification,  the  words  which  you  have  under- 
scored are  words  of  which  I  have  no  recollection." — "As  to  the  [fourth] 
specification,  the  only  circumstance  not  distinctly  mentioned  in  the  first  article 
which  appeared  in  the  Record,  is  that  two  of  the  majority  declared  they  would 
abandon  the  Association  forever,  if  the  minority  were  permitted  to  record 
their  dissent.  I  do  not  clearly  remember  what  you  refer  to."  As  you  have, 
in  the  one  case  no  recollection,  and  in  the  other  not  a  clear  remembrance  ; 
probably  you  was  absent  when  the  words  referred  to  were  uttered.  It  is 
doubted,  therefore,  whether  you  can  so  well  understand  their  import,  as  can 
persons  who  heard  and  recollected  them. 

You  ask  me :  "  Were  the  minority  oppressed  ?  Was  any  one  of  their 
rights  infringed  I  Were  they  denied  the  privilege  of  entering  a  protest  ? 
Was  there  any  cote  that  the  yeas  and  nays  should  not  be  taken  V  —  No  wil- 
lingness to  grant  the  minority  the  privilege  of  entering  a  protest  was  express- 
ed. After  the  adoption  of  the  resolutions,  the  vote  was  reconsidered,  "  in 
order  to  make  room  for  a  proposal  to  take  the  question  by  yeas  and  nays." 
A  long  and  animated  debate  ensued,  during  which  two  members  of  the  major- 
ity declared  distinctly,  they  would  abandon  the  Association  forever,  if  the 
minority  were  permitted  to  record  their  dissent.  And  the  privilege  was  de- 
nied the  minority  by  a  vote,  if  I  mistake  not,  of  sixteen  to  twelve.  By  that 
vote  they  felt  themselves  oppressed,  and  that  their  rights  were  infringed.  I 
did  not  favor  a  reconsideration  of  the  vote  adopting  the  resolutions,  because  I 
preferred  to  the  record  of  the  yeas  and  nays  a  protest,  in  which  we  might 
state  the  reasons  of  our  dissent,  and  which,  if  it  was  not  permitted  to  be  pub- 
lished in  the  Minutes  of  the  Association,  we  might  dispose  of  according  to  our 
pleasure.  It  was  easy  to  perceive,  that  there  would  be  more  objections,  on 
the  part  of  the  majority  to  a  protest,  than  to  a  record  of  yeas  and  nays. 

But,  sir,  I  have  yet  to  learn,  what  are  the  real  objections  to  taking  the  yeas 
and  nays  on  important  questions,  when  properly  demanded,  in  the  Associa- 
tion more  than  in  other  deliberative  assemblies.  And  I  do  not  fully  under- 
stand why  brethren  who  feel  and  act  with  you,  are  so  sensitive  whenever  the 
subject  is  introduced.  Majorities  must  govern  ;  but  have  minorities  no  rights? 
Must  they  at  all  events  be  made  accountable  to  the  public  for  sentiments  and 
practices  which  they  conscientiously  oppose  ?  They  have  rights,  and  these 
rights  are  protected  in  well  organized  civil  and  ecclesiastical  bodies.  And 
one  of  the  rights  specified  is  that  of  recording  their  dissent  on  important  ques- 
tions. And  does  our  Association  alone  possess  the  right  of  passing  resolutions, 
and  publishing  them  abroad,  and  making  large  minorities,  who  are  in  con- 
science opposed  to  such  resolutions,  responsible  for  them?  Were  Abolition- 
ists to  constitute  a  majority  of  the  Association,  and  adopt  resolutions  denun- 
ciatory of  the  Colonization  Society  ;  would  Colonizationists,  who  composed  a 
large  minority,  and  who  opposed  these  resolutions,  believe  they  had  no  rights 
infringed  by  being  made  responsible  for  them  to  the  public?  Were  the  Gen- 
eral Association  of  Connecticut,  at  their  meeting  in  your  church  next  June,  to 
adopt  resolutions  denouncing  the  Theological  Department  of  Yale  College, 
and  the  Pastor  of  the  First  Church  in  New-Haven,  as  heretical  and  unworthy 


10  LETTERS    TO   THE 

of  confidence,  and  publish  these  resolutions,  as  if  they  were  their  unanimous 
decision,  while  a  large  minority  opposed  their  adoption  ;  is  there  not  one  man 
who  would  feel  himself  oppressed,  and  let  the  world  know  it,  if  he  were  not 
allowed  to  record  his  dissent  ?  Would  Rev.  Leonard  Bacon,  as  one  of  that 
minority,  and  in  such  circumstances,  tell  us  that  voting  by  yeas  and  nays  was 
"  unprovided  for  by  the  wisdom  of  those  fathers  who  formed  the  rules  of 
order"? — (and  formed  them  when  there  was  not  a  religious  newspaper  in 
existence,  when  they  did  not  publish  their  proceedings,  and  when  they  trans- 
acted the  business  of  the  Association  perhaps  in  the  parlor  or  study  of  a 
brother.)  —  "  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  genius  and  habits  of  our  ecclesiasti- 
cal meetings,  which  operate  by  conference  and  debate,  rather  than  by  vote"? 
—  "  that  the  reasons  which  exist  for  such  a  practice  in  legislative  and  repre- 
sentative bodies,  do  not  exist  in  the  General  Association"?  —  and  "that  the 
only  tendency  of  such  a  system,  when  introduced,  must  be  to  draw  a  public 
line  of  demarkation  between  parties,  and  to  make  each  man  publicly  responsi- 
ble to  his  copartizans"?  Would  you,  Sir,  in  these  circumstances,  employ 
such  reasoning  as  this  against  an  imperious  demand  of  justice  ?  It  is  wrong, 
it  is  oppressive,  to  make  persons  responsible  to  the  public  for  sentiments,  and 
practices  not  their  own  ;  and  much  more  so  to  make  them  thus  responsible  for 
sentiments  and  practices  which  they  have  conscientiously  opposed.  And  men 
who  fear  God  will  not  long  silently  submit  to  such  injustice. 

I  regret  to  find  in  your  letter  the  following  respecting  Mr.  S.  of  the  Wind- 
ham Association. 

"  You  say  that  this  good  brother,  whom  I  have  known  and  loved  for  nearly 
twenty  years,  is  one  of  the  last  men  who  should  be  compared  with  a  Jacobin 
legislator.  True  he  is  one  of  the  last  men  of  whom  such  a  thing  would  have 
been  expected.  But  if  good  men  and  modest  men  act  like  Jacobin  legisla- 
tors, is  there  any  wrong  in  saying  so  ? "  —  "  When  I  saw  that  good  and  ami- 
able brother  stand  up  to  read  his  'instructions,'  I  was  ashamed  ;  and  I  have 
yet  to  learn  that  the  correspondent  of  the  Record  was  guilty  of  any  misrep- 
resentation in  intimating  that  by  that  act  the  brother,  and  those  who  had 
instructed  him,  were  sanctioning  and  applying  to  our  ecclesiastical  affairs,  one 
of  the  most  dangerous  principles  of  political  Jacobinism."  —  "  The  Windham 
Association  did  not  merely  express  their  opinion,  they  instructed  their  dele- 
gates how  to  vote.     '  Instruct'  was  the  word.     I  felt  it  like  a  wound." 

In  1838  the  General  Association,  as  "  usual  appointed  three  delegates  to 
the  General  Assembly,  with  instructions  to  attend  its  sessions,  &c."  Who 
first  sanctioned  and  applied  "  to  our  ecclesiastial  affairs  one  of  the  most  dan- 
gerous principles  of  political  Jacobinism"  ?  You,  my  brother,  was  present  at 
Norwalk  when  delegates  were  appointed  "  with  instructions  to  attend  its 
sessions,"  &c."  Was  you  not  ashamed  ?  And  when  you  have  read  in  the 
minutes  of  the  General  Association  the  word  "  instructions"  have  you  not  felt 
it  like  a  wound  ?  Yet  the  public  have  not  heard  of  your  shame  and  wound, 
which  this  transaction  occasioned. 

This  public  attack  upon  Mr.  S.  and  those  who  commissioned  him.  has 
lately  been  brought  before  the  Windham  Association,  and  in  a  free  conversation, 
they  unitedly,  and  without  distinction  of  party,  condemned  it  as  a  misrepre- 
sentation of  their  conduct,  and  ill  treatment  of  their  delegate. 

But  what  was  the  high  offence  committed  ?  Why,  the  Windham  Associ- 
ation with  great  unanimity,  adopted  a  resolution  expressing  their  deliberate 
judgment,  that  it  would  be  for  the  peace  of  our  churches  to  nave  the  corres- 
pondence between  the  General  Association  and  both  branches  of  the  Presbv- 


RKV.    LEONARD    BACON.  1  I 

terian  Church  by  interchange  of  delegates,  suspended  until  the  differences  in 
the  latter  denomination  were  farther  adjusted.  Mr.  S.,  their  delegate,  as  he 
accorded  in  judgment  with  the  brethren  of  his  Association,  advocated  the  sus- 
pension of  the  correspondence  with  ability  and  meekness.  But  alluding  to 
this  resolution  of  his  Association,  he  happened  to  say,  instructed,  instead 
of  saying,  requested.  His  old  friend,  brother  in  Christ,  and  brother 
in  the  ministry,  who  had  "known  him  and  loved  him  for  nearly  twenty 
years,"  sitting  as  a  spectator  in  some  part  of  the  house,  "  was  ashamed  ;"  and 
he  felt  the  word  instruct,  •'  like  a  wound."  Mr.  8.  by  the  use  of  that  word, 
and  his  Association  were  "  sanctioning  and  applying  to  our  ecclesiastical 
affairs  one  of  the  most  dangerous  principles  of  political  Jacobinism."  And  in 
a  religions  newspaper,  and  by  a  ministerial  brother,  who  had  known  him  and 
loved  him  so  lung,  he  is  published  as  acting  like  a  Jacobin  legislator. 

You  ask  me:  "  If  good  men  and  modest  men  act  like  Jacobin  legislators,  is 
there  any  wrong  in  saying  so  ?"  Had  Mr.  S.  conducted  as  you  represent,  and 
had  you,  ashamed  and  wounded  as  you  was,  reproved  him  in  private,  there 
would  have  been  no  wrong  in  the  case  ;  and  doubtless  satisfaction  would 
have  been  gained.  "  If  thy  brother  shall  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell 
him  his  fault  between  t/iee  and  him  alone.''  But  after  a  considerable  period 
was  spent  in  his  presence  at  Danbury,  an  article  was  deliberately  prepared 
and  published,  in  which  he  is  compared  with  a  Jacobin  legislator.  Is  this 
right  ?  Is  this  in  accordance  with  the  spirit. or  precepts  of  the  gospel?  Who, 
according  to  your  representation  of  his  conduct,  has  committed  the  greater 
offence  1  Who  has  introduced  into  our  ecclesiastical  affairs  a  principle  most 
dangerous  ?  I  am  persuaded,  sir,  that  this  act  of  yours  is  not  in  accordance 
with  your  preaching,  nor  in  accordance  with  your  gene?'al  conduct. 

Your  defence  of  what  you  are  pleased  to  call  a  "  playful  allusion  to  a  little 
piece  of  folly  perpetrated  by  the  Pastoral  Union,"  while  it  exhibits  a  rare  tact 
at  self-defence,  contains  some  things  quite  exceptionable.  Can  you  believe 
that  *  the  Pastoral  Union  to  link  the  name  and  perhaps  the  spirit  of  Edwards 
forever  with  the  institution  which  they  were  founding,  sought  out  the  old  door 
step  of  the  house  in  which  Jonathan  Edwards'  father  lived,  and  laid  it  with 
solemn  pomp  as  the  corner  stone  of  their  building  "  ?  This  you  assert  without 
qualification  :  but  by  what  way  you  ascertained  the  alleged  fact,  or  on  what 
authority  you  make  the  assertion,  we  are  not  informed. 

I  would  not  err  in  my  interpretation  of  the  following  sentence. 

"  You  can  tell  perhaps  whether  there  was  any  thing  of  that  devout  and 
prayerful  calumny  in  the  convention  six  years  ago,  of  which  you  speak  so 
fervently."  —  Am  I  to  understand  you  as  intimating  to  the  public  that,  the 
forty  ministers,  who  composed  the  convention  at  East- Windsor  six  years  ago, 
hypocritically  engaged  in  devotional  services  for  the  guilty  and  base  purpose 
of  calumniating  their  brethren  more  effectually  ?  Has  the  time  come,  when 
the  earnest  supplications  of  Congregational  ministers  in  Connecticut  are  rep- 
resented as  a  cover  to  calumny ;  not  by  an  infidel,  or  a  scoffer ;  but  by  a 
distinguished  minister  of  Christ  —  the  Pastor  of  the  first  Church  in  New-  Ha- 
ven ?  I  am  unwilling  to  put  the  obvious  construction  on  that  passage  of  your 
letter,  and  I  lament  that,  in  your  haste  and  party  zeal,  such  a  sentence  should 
have  fallen  from  your  pen.  t 

You  inform  inc.  that  1  spoke  "in  the  name  of  the  minority,"  and  that  I 
undertook  " to  represent  their  actual  sentiments  towards  what  is  called  the 
new  school  Assembly."  —  Of  this  I  was  not  acquainted  till  the  receipt  of  your 
First  letter.     And  did  I  possess  all  the  qualifications  for  that  service,  which 


12  LETTERS    TO    THE 

you  ascribe  to  md,  1  should  not  attempt  such  a  representation.  I  said  what- 
ever may  have  been  their  views  and  feelings  on  these  and  cognate  subjects 
relating  to  the  controversy  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  &c.  It  is  possible 
vou  arc  acquainted  with  writers,  who  sometimes  put  the  construction  which 
suits  them  best  on  paragraphs  of  their  opponents,  and  then  say  :  "If  we  mis- 
understand you  here',  we  pray  you  to  correct  us." 

While  I  have  found  in  your  Letter  before  me  some  things  unpleasant  and 
even  painful ;  I  rejoice  in  the  opportunity  of  reciprocating  the  delight  you 
express  in  its  last  paragraph.  —  Let  me  conclude,"  you  observe,  "  by  saying 
how  much  I  am  gratified  by  the  closing  sentence  of  your  letter.  You  are  in 
principle  opposed  to  anonymous  articles,  except  of  a  specific  character. 
Good  !  How  long  have  you  been  grounded  on  that  principle  ?"  —  For  a  long 
period.  Even  before  the  earliest  date  to  which  you  refer,  I  have  "been  so 
grounded  on  that  principle  "  that,  I  have  never  written  one  anonymous  article 
attacking  the  character  or  wounding  the  feelings  of  persons.  During  my 
whole  life  I  have  never  written  even  an  anonymous  letter.  Can  you  say  the 
same,  my  brother  ?  That  you  can  scarcely  express  the  gratification  you  feel, 
on  account  of  this  principle  which  I  have  adopted,  affords  me  great  pleasure 
for  two  reasons. 

1.  I  had  supposed  myself  to  be  very  much  alone  in  the  adoption  of  this 
principle. 

2.  It  was  supposed  that  you  was  accustomed  to  this  mode  of  warfare, 
and  was  quite  expert  in  wielding  its  weapons.  But  you  are  now  with  me. 
And  being  "  grounded  on  that  principle,"  and  acting  in  accordance  with  it,  I 
trust  your  usefulness  will  be  much  increased.  Hereafter  there  will  be  annexed 
to  articles  of  your  authorship  no  fictitious  signatures  ;  but  Leonard  Bacon,  a 
name  of  which  its  owner  need  not  be  ashamed. 

I  am  affectionately  your  brother, 

GEORGE  A.  CALHOUN. 
Coventry,  December  6,  1839. 


H  e  1 1 1  v  X  IE  I  ♦ 

Dear  Sir,  —  "  What  is  the  Pastoral  Union  ?  Wliat  is  its  design  ?  What 
are  its  operations  ?  To  what  results  is  U  tending  ?  —  The  answers  which  you 
have  given  to  these  questions,  as  you  predicted,  arc  not  satisfactory. 
They  arc  far,  it  is  believed,  from  making  a  correct  impression  on  the  minds  of 
your  readers.  And  had  you  not  intimated  to  the  contrary,  I  should  have  sup- 
posed them  designed  to  sever  for  ever  the  clerical  and  ecclesiastical  relations 
existing  between  the  Congregational  ministers  and  churches  of  this  State. 
According  to  your  representations,  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of"  New  Haven 
theology "  there  have  been  no  errors  in  doctrine  or  in  practice.  All  have 
been  as  they  should  be,  except  that  there  has  been  too  long  delay  in  the  pub- 
lication of  a  treatise  "on  the  nature  of  mind  and  of  moral  agency,  &c." 
"Vj^ule  on  the  other  side  there  has  been  manifested,  from  the  beginning,  a  con- 
timiacious  spirit,  which  has  urged  on  its  possessors  in  a  uniform  course  of  un- 
christian  and  dishonorable  conduct.  Will  such  a  representation  "tend  to  unite 
the  ministers  of  Connecticut  more  strongly  than  ever  in  those  ties  which 
seem  in  some  danger  of  disrepution." 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  13 

When  the  Pastoral  Union  was  organized  I  was  present,  and  I  have  taken  a 
part  in  all  the  deliberations  of  that  body.  And  to  the  four  questions  which 
you  have  made  the  prominent  topics  of  your  letters,  I  will  give  brief  answers 
which,  it  is  believed,  will  be  approved  by  those  who  are  best  acquainted  with 
the  facts,  and  which  will  be  sanctioned  at  the  great  day. 

1.  What  is  the  Pastoral  Vnioti  ?  —  It  is  an  association  of  ministers  in  Con- 
necticut, who  maintain  the  doctrines  of  the  Fathers  of  New  England,  and  who 
arc  dissatisfied  with  the  recent  speculations  by  which  the  peace  and  harmony 
of  the  churches  have  been  disturbed. 

2.  What  is  its  design  ?  —  Its  design  is  to  secure  union  and  concert  among 
the  friends  of  New  England  Galvanism,  and  in  this  way  to  promote  the  cause 
of  truth,  and  the  interests  of  Christ's  kingdom-. 

3.  What  arc  its  operations  ?  —  By-  the  Pastoral  Union  the  Trustees  of  the 
Theological  Institute  are  annually  appointed.  It  also  exercises  a  general  su- 
pervision over  the  concerns  of  the  Institute,  appoints  annually  a  committee 
to  attend  the  examinations,  receives  their  report,  and  also  a  report  from  the 
Trustees  ;  —  and  deliberates  on  the  best  means  of  promoting  the  interests  of 
the  .Seminary.  The  Pastoral  Union,  also,  like  other  clerical  and  ecclesiastical 
bodies,  attends  to  such  other  business,  relating  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  as 
may  from  time  to  time  be  brought  before  it. 

4.  To  what  results  is  it  tending  ?  —  The  results  of  other  organizations,  and 
the  perversion  of  the  original  design  of  other  institutions,  admonish  us  not  to 
speak  with  too  much  confidence  in  answer  to  this  question.  We  cannot  look 
into  futurity.  If  those  who  belong  to  the  Pastoral  Union,  had  not  believed 
that  the  results". would  be  favorable  to  truth  and  righteousness,  they  would  not 
have  joined  it.  And  if  they  did  not  still  believe  it  tended  to  good  results, 
they  would  doubtless  abandon  it.  But,  so  far  as  I  know,  there  is  no  disposi- 
tion on  the  part  of  members  to  forsake  it.  They  express  their  belief  that  it 
has  already  accomplished  great  good  ;  and  that  Providence  designs  it  to  be  a 
blessing  to  the  church  in  future  ages. 

And  now  where  is  the  offence  in  organizing  the  Pastoral  Union  ?  For  five 
or  six  years  after  the  New  Haven  divines  commenced  the  discussion  in  which 
you  say  "  the  Pastoral  Union  appears  to  have  originated,  I  avoided  expressing 
an  opinion  on  the  subject,  and  in  the  small  circle  of  my  influence,  I  did  all  in 
my  power  to  quiet  alarm  and  prevent  division  ;  indulging  the  groundless  hope, 
that  the  controversy  would  cease  before  it  would  be  allowed  to  agitate  the 
churches.  And  it  was  not  till  it  had  been  brought,  by  the  preachers  of  the 
New  Haven  School,  sustained  by  the  Christian  Spectator,  into  our  ministers' 
meeting,  into  my  pulpit,  into  my  bible-class,  and  to  my  fire-side,  and  was  so 
enforced  upon  me  that  I  coukl  not  remain  silent  longer,  that  I  manifested  my 
dissatisfaction.  Interest,  predilection,  and  every  extrinsic  consideration,  dis- 
posed me  to  hope  and  believe,  that  nothing  dangerous  was  advocated  in  the 
new  sentiments,  and  that  no  party  organization  existed,  until  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary as  indisputable  as  it  was  painful,  was  pressed  upon  me.  And  so  soon  as  I 
disclosed  ray  dissatisfaction  with  the  new  theological  views  which  were  urged 
upon  the  Christian  community  in  all  directions,  and  my  regret  on  account  of 
the  course  pursued  at.  New  Haven,  an  extraneous  influence  was  exerted, 
which  was  well  calculated  to  diminish  my  peace  and  usefulness  with  the  peo- 
ple of  my  charge,  and  in  the  vicinity  where  I  dwell.  And  thus  it  was  with 
many  of  the  ministers  whom  you  censure  so  severely.  They  were  not  allowed 
to  retain  their  views  of  divine  truth,  and  discharge  their  ministerial  duties,  as  in 
former  years,  without  intefcrence  from  abroad.     And  convinced  as  they  were 


14  LETTERS    TO    THE 

that  sentiments  subversive  of  the  faith  of  the  Fathers  were  inculcated  with 
great  zeal  and  efficiency,and  that  there  existed,to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  pow- 
erful organization,  with  many  facilities  for  promulgating  their  sentiments,  and 
revolutionizing  the  churches ;  might  they  not  attempt  to  secure  union  and 
concert  among  the  friends  of  New  England  Calvinism,  and  in  this  way  en- 
deavor to  promote  the  cause  of  truth  and  the  interests  of  Christ's  kingdom  ? 
By  thus  doing,  whose  privileges  have  they  invaded  ?  Whose  commands  have 
they  disobeyed  ?  Have  they  not  a  right  to  think,  to  speak,  and  to  act  for 
themselves  ?  Have  Congregational  ministers  more  than  one  Master  ?  If 
these  convictions  were  according  to  truth,  on  being  thus  convicted,  were  they 
not  solemnly  bound  to  adopt  measures  for  defending  "  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints  "'?  And  if  the  peace  of  the  ministry  and  of  the  churches  is 
disturbed,  who  are  responsible  for  this  consequence,  they,  or  their  opponents  ? 

Dear  Sir,  allow  me  to  say  here,  what  I  may  hereafter  attempt  to  prove, 
that,  notwithstanding  your  individual,  protracted,  and  solemn  protest  against 
the  "  Protest  of  the  Pastoral  Union,"  you  have  not  yet  come  "  to  the  root  and 
essence  of  our  existing  difficulties."  The  great  questions  to  be  settled,  before 
harmony  can  be  restored  to  the  ministers  of  this  State,  are  :  1.  Previous  to 
the  organization  of  the  Pastor-al  Union,  were  there  not  sentiments  inculcated 
and  promulgated,  which  were  believed  to  be  subversive  of  the  established  faith 
of  our  churches  ?  —  2.  Did  there  not,  previous  to  that  period,  exist  in  this  State, 
to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  powerful  organization  with  many  facilities  for 
the  promulgation  of  those  sentiments  and  the  revolution  of  the  churches  1  As 
you  earnestly  desire  that  misunderstanding  may  be  removed,  you  will  permit 
me  to  occupy  some  time  and  space  in  relation  to  these  questions. 

"  For  half  a  century,"  you  truly  say,  ;'  the  Congregational  ministers  of 
Connecticut  had  been  a  remarkably  united  and  harmonious  body."  Soon  af- 
ter, you  observe,  "  such  was  the  state  of  things  before  the  commencement 
of  the  discussion  in  which  the  Pastoral  Union  appears  to  have  originated." 
From  these  declarations,  may  we  not  infer,  that  our  existing  difficulties  orig- 
inated in  the  peculiar  sentiments  of  the  New  Haven  school  ?  and  that  the 
Congregational  ministers  of  Connecticut  might  have  remained  the  same  "  uni- 
ted and  harmonious  body,"  had  not  the  instructors  of  that  school,  adopted  new 
theological  opinions,  and  urged  them  upon  the  religious  community,  to  the 
great  dissatisfaction  of  many  ministers  of  the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian 
denominations.  Such  ministers  regarded  the  theological  views  of  these  men 
as  differing  widely  from  those  maintained  by  "  the  orthodox,"  (this  is  the  appel- 
lation which  you  have  given  us,)  and  they  were  alarmed.  But  you  think 
there  was  no  occasion  for  this  alarm,  and,  in  your  examination  of  the  senti- 
ments against  which  the  Pastoral  Union  protested,  you  represent  the  differ- 
ences between  the  New  Haven  divines  and  their  opponents  as  relating  to 
philosophical  speculations  which  are  of  no  great  importance,  If  it  is  so,  "  I 
ask  earnestly,"  and  I  pray  that  I  may  be  "  answered  unequivocally,"  why  are 
these  peculiar  views  inculcated  and  promulgated  with  so  much  zeal  and  effi- 
ciency, and  to  the  hazard  of  such  weighty  and  solemn  interests  ?  A  full  and 
satisfactory  answer  to  this  inquiry,  would  afford  a  grateful  relief  to  many 
minds. 

It  is  well  known,  that  your  brethren  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  ministers  in  all 
the  New  England  States,  in  all  parts  of  our  country,  and  in  Europe,  regard 
these  differences  as  relating  to  matters  of  vital  consequence  :  among  these 
ministers  there  are  not  a  few  distinguished  theologians.  How  were  these 
speculations  regarded  by  such  men  as  Dr.  Ebenezer  Porter,  Dr.  Griffin,  Dr. 


HEY.    LEONARD    BACON.  15 

Hyde,  and  Dr.  Cornelius,  while  they  were  living  ?  They  were  not  permitted 
to  die,  till  they  had  publicly  and  solemnly  testified  against  them.  Dr.  Porter, 
not  long  before  he  was  taken  to  heaven,  expressed  it  as  his  deliberate  opin- 
ion, that  it  would  require  one  hundred  years  to  repair  the  wastes  which  these 
speculations  were  bringing  upon  our  Zion.  Dr.  Griffin  was  so  deeply  impressed 
with  the  importance  of  these  differences,  that  he  determined  to  write  his 
treatise  on  the  Doctrine  of  Divine  Efficiency  —  a  book  which  remains  to  this 
day  unanswered  —  though  it  should  cost  him  his  life.  How  did  Jeremiah 
Evarts  —  a  name  associated  with  the  greatest  and  dearest  interests  of  the 
church  —  feel  on  this  subject  ?  How  are  these  speculations  now  regarded 
by  such  men  as  Dr.  Woods,  Dr.  Richards,  Dr.  Dana,  and  Dr.  Humphrey  ? 
not  to  mention  the  Princeton  Professors,  and  many  other  eminent  divines, 
both  in  the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  denominations.  If  the  contro- 
versy respects  only  minor  points  —  "  mere  shades  of  difference  " —  how  are 
we  to  account  for  the  disregard  manifested  toward  the  views  and  feelings  of 
such  men,  and  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  churches  ? 

You  observe  ;  "  It  is  enough  to  say  that,  if  I  understand  the  case,  the  real 
differences  between  the  parties  are  differences  of  a  philosophical,  rather  than 
of  a  directly  theological  nature.  Nothing  is  more  manifest  to  me,  through  the 
whole,  than  that  Dr.  Taylor  holds  a  different  system  of  intellectual  and  moral 
philosophy  from  that  held  by  his  opponents."  "  The  original  error  with  the 
controversy  on  both  sides,  that  which  made  it  impossible  to  arrive  at  any  con- 
clusion or  common  understandi  g,  was,  that  Dr.  Taylor,  instead  of  publish- 
ing his  views  respecting  the  nature  of  the  mind,  of  moral  agency,  of  moral 
government,  abstractly  from  any  application  of  them  to  theological  science, 
began  with  the  discussion  of  vexed  theological  questions,  —  with  the  attempt 
to  solve  old  difficulties  and  to  meet  old  objections  to  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
by  reasonings,  the  conclusiveness  and  intelligibleness  of  which  depend  too 
much  on  ideas  and  principles  with  which  he  is  familiar,  but  which  his  adver- 
saries in  argument  habitually  overlook.  The  consequence  is,  that  the  more 
he  writes  on  these  topics  of  theology,  the  more  certainly  and  completely  is  he 
misunderstood  by  a  portion  of  his  readers,  who  look  at  what  he  says  through 
the  colored  and  refractory  medium  of  their  own  philosophy."  These  extracts 
from  your  Second  Letter  1  accompany  with  the  following  remarks  : 

1.  It  is  not  easy  to  perceive,  how  "the  original  error  of  the  controversy" 
could  be  "  on  both  sides,"  since  it  consisted  in  Dr.  Taylor's  not  first  "  publish- 
ing his  views  respecting  the  nature  of  the  mind,  of  moral  agency,  &c."  Are 
his  opponents  responsible  for  the  manner  in  which  he  began  the  controversy? 
Did  he  not  adopt  his  own  method  ?  And  if  this  was  the  original  error,  was 
it  not  his  alone  ?  According  to  your  reasoning,  is  not  Dr.  Taylor  alone  ac- 
countable to  his  brethren,  to  the  churches,  and  to  God,  for  all  the  evils  of  the 
controversy  ? 

2.  You  represent  this  original  error  of  Dr.  Taylor  as  being  great,  and 
attended  with  most  unhappy  consequences  ;  —  an  error,  "  which  made  it  im- 
possible to  arrive  to  any  conclusion  or  common  understanding,"  so  that,  "  the 
more  he  writes  on  these  topics  of  theology,  the  more  certainly  and  completely 
is  he  misunderstood  by  a  portion  of  his  readers."  Why  has  not  the  error 
before  this  late  period  been  corrected  ?  Why  is  the  world  kept  thus  long  in 
hopeless  darkness  ?  Why  arc  the  fears  and  distresses  perpetuated,  which 
his  publications  have  occasioned  in  the  hearts  of  thousands  ?  If  the  publica- 
tion of  Dr.  Taylor's  philosoplucal  views  of  the  nature  of  the  mind,  of  moral 
agency,  <fec.  would  make   every  thing  luminous,  satisfy  his  brethren,  and 


16  LETTERS    TO    THE 

restore  peace,  the  book  should  be  forthcoming.     A  great  multitude  would  hail 
it  with  extacics  of  joy. 

3.  Many  persons  may  be  interested  to  know,  by  what  process  brother 
Bacon  has  been  led  to  discover  the  facts,  which  he  announces  ;  —  that  the 
opponents  of  Dr.  Taylor  cannot  understand  him,  because  he  has  not  publish- 
ed ••  his  views  respecting  the  nature  of  the  mind,  of  moral  agency,  &c."  —  and 
that  the  differences  under  consideration  are  philosophical.  They  are  confi- 
dent that  they  do  understand  him  ;  that  the  differences  are  so  far  from  being 
merely  philosophical,  that  they  relate  to  matters  of  vital  interest  ;  and  that 
the  injurious  effects  on  the  theology  and  experimental  religion  of  the  churches, 
though  now  seen,  will  hereafter  be  more  fully  discovered.  If  there  is  an 
insuperable  barrier  in  the  way  of  their  arriving  at  the  truth  in  this  case,  how 
did  brother  Bacon  gain  possession  of  it  1 

4.  Does  this  reference  to  Dr.  Taylor  do  him  justice  as  a  theological  teacher? 
"  The  more  he  writes  on  these  topics  of  theology,  the  more  certainly  and 
completely  is  he  misunderstood  by  a  portion  of  his  readers."  And  who  are 
among  this  portion  of  his  readers  ?  Men  distinguished  for  their  powers  of 
discrimination,  and  who  have  for  a  long  period  been  devoted  to  theological  sci- 
ence. "  Our  orthodox  community/'  wrote  the  late  Dr.  Porter  of  Andover, 
"  for  near  a  century,  had  been  but  little  disturbed,  till  this  luminary  appeared, 
and  volunteered  to  shed  darkness  on  the  world.  He  wrote,  and  talked,  and 
talked  and  wrote  ;  and  what  has  been  the  result  T'  Does  Dr.  Porter,  or  your- 
self, sir,  exhibit  the  person  introduced  in  a  more  favorable  light  ? 

5.  It  yet  remains  to  be  proved,  that  the  differences  under  consideration, 
"are  differences  of  a  philosophical,  rather  than  of  a  directly  theological  nature." 
Should  it  be  granted,  that  they  originate  in  the  new  and  unpublished  philoso- 
phy of  Dr.  Taylor,  does  he  not  interpret  scripture,  and  explain  the  doctrines 
of  the  gospel,  in  accordance  with  his  philosophy  ?  Suppose  he  professes  to 
believe  the  Calvinistic  formulas,  does  he  not  attach  to  the  language  in  which 
they  are  expressed  a  meaning  entirely  different  from  that  which  they  hav  eusu- 
ally  been  received  1  And  is  a  man's  faith  determined,  by  the  terms  in]which  it 
is  expressed,  or,  by  the  sense  in  which  he  uses  those  terms  ?  Suppose  these 
differences  do  originate  in  philosophy,  it  is  no  matter  where  they  begin,  we 
are  to  look  at  their  results.  The  errors  of  Pelagius  and  Arminius  began  in 
philosophical  speculations  respecting  moral  agency,  and  the  moral  government 
of  God.  And  where  have  most  of  the  great  errors,  which  have  infested  the 
church  originated  1  Has  it  not  been,  in  first  laying  down  certain  principles, 
which  were  supposed  to  be  sanctioned  by  reason,  and  common  sense,  and 
then  interpreting  the  Bible  according  to  these  principles  ? 

The  trinity  in  the  Godhead,  according  to  the  philosophy  of  the  Unitarians, 
is  an  absurdity.  Hence  passages  of  scripture,  which  teach  the  doctrine  of 
the  trinity  must  be  explained  away.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  philosophy  of 
the  Universalists,  that  a  just  and  benevolent  God  should  punish  his  creatures 
eternally.  Hence  all  texts  of  scripture,  which  teach  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment  must  be  made  to  submit  to  the  dictation  of  this  philosophy.  Ac- 
cording to  the  philosophy  of  some  divines,  moral  agents  can  sin  in  despite  of 
all  opposing  influence,  which  God  can  employ  to  prevent  it.  From  this  was 
interred  the  doctrine,  that  sin  could  not  be  entirely  prevented  in  a  moral  uni- 
verse. This  point  being  settled,  as  supposed,  all  those  passages  of  scripture, 
which  obviously  teach  God's  absolute  control  over  the  moral  actions  of  his 
creatures,  must  be  explained  away.  According  to  the  philosophy  of  some,  no 
being  can  possess  a  moral  character,  till  he  has  formed  it  himself  by  actual  obe- 


KEV.    LEONARD    BAC05.  17 

dience,  or  disobedience,  to  known  law.  Hence  those  texts  of  scripture,  which 
teach,  or  seem  to  teach,  that,  God  created  Adam  a  holy  being,  and  that,  his 
posterity  come  into  the  world  with  a  sinful  nature,  must,  instead  of  their  obvi- 
ious  import,  receive  a  philosophical  interpretation.  According  to  the  philoso- 
phy of  some,  self  love  is  the  cause  of  all  moral  action.  Hence  every  thing  in 
the  Bible,  which  teaches,  or  seems  to  teach,  that  Christians  are  actuated  by 
higher  motives,  must  be  explained  in  accordance  with  this  philosophy.  Are 
theological  errors,  then,  to  be  regarded  of  no  importance,  because  they  orig- 
inate in  philosophy  ?  I  have  yet  to  learn,  how  to  separate  philosophy  from 
theology,  when  it  is  applied  to  the  interpretation  of  the  scriptures,  and  to  an 
explanation  of  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  Has  the  Bible  often  been  mis- 
interpreted,  except  in  connection  with  a  false  philosophy?  Has  the  church 
of  Christ  ever  been  scourged  with  a  destructive  heresy,  but  in  connection 
with  philosophy  ?  And,  at  this  period,  my  brother,  when  there  are  so  many 
apologists  for  deviations  from  the  long  established  faith,  when  so  much  is 
said,  respecting  differences  being  unimportant,  because  they  are  claimed  to 
be  philosophical ;  should  we  not  seriously  regard  the  voice  from  heaven,  which 
says  to  us  :  —  •■  Beware,  lest  any  num.  spoil  you,  through  philosophy,  and  vain 
deceit ;  after  the  tradition  of  men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world,  and  not 
after  Christ." 

But,  sir,  you  seem  to  think,  that  the  differences  between  Dr.  Taylor  and  his 
opponents  cannot  be  of  great  importance,  because  they  relate  to  philosophy 
rather  than  theology.  Do  the  Association  of  Gentlemen,  by  whom  the 
Christian  Spectator  was  conducted,  think  so  ?  Does  Dr.  Taylor  himself  think 
so  ?  If  this  is  his  opinion,  why  then  does  he  represent  the  sentiments  of  the 
orthodox,  as  leading,  by  legitimate  consequence,  to  the  "  most  destructive 
errors,  and  the  very  worst  of  heresies  ?"  Let  any  person  examine  the  contro- 
versy between  him  and  Dr.  Woods  and  Dr.  Tyler,  and  judge  whether  he 
treats  the  points  at  issue,  as  "  minor  points,"  and  "  shades  of  difference."  He 
charges  Dr.  Tyler  with  maintaining  theories,  which  involve  the  positions,  that 
"sin  is  a  good  thing"  —  "good  in  itself"  —  "the  only  real  good  \o  man"  — 
that  "  to  sin  is  the  very  end  of  man's  creation,  the  highest  end  of  his  being, 
the  chief  end  of  man  ;  "  —  "  that  God  is  the  responsible  author  of  sin  "  —  that 
'•  man  is  doomed  to  sin  by  a  natural  and  fatal  necessity"  —  that  "the  terms 
of  salvation  and  the  exhibition  of  motives  to  comply  with  them,  are  a  delusive 
mockery  ;"'  — "  that  man  as  he  is  constituted  by  his  Maker  is  like  a  stone  or  a 
corpse  "  —  that  "  the  divine  lawgiver  is  a  deceiver  "  —  that  "  God  is  a  crim- 
inal tempter"  —  that  "in  no  respect  is  Satan  more  truly  criminal  as  a  tempter 
than  God  is"  —  that  "we  ought  to  praise  God  for  all  the  sin.  which  we  and 
others  have  ever  committed"  —  that  "we  ought  to  take  pleasure  in  other 
men's  sins,  and  do  what  we  can  to  forward  the  commission  of  them  "  —  that 
"  those  who  are  lost  are  doomed  to  sin  and  everlasting  burnings,  that  the 
smoke  of  their  torment  may  end' ar  heaven  to  the  saved  " — that  "celestial 
spirits,  if  they  utter  truth  in  their  songs,  praise  God,  not  that  he  vindicates  his 
iaw,  and  sustains  his  throne  by  the  punishment  of  beings  who  have  violated 
any  will  of  his  ;  but,  for  exactly  fulfilling  the  sole  purpose  of  their  creation  : 
they  praise  God  for  that  peculiar  delight,  these  higher  and  exquisite  raptims, 
which  they  could  enjoy  only  by  means  of  the  agonies  of  others  in  everlasting 
pain;"  —  that  "the  worst  kind  of  moral  action  is  the  best"  —  that  "man- 
kind are  bound  to  believe,  that  they  shall  please  and  glorify  God  better  by  sin, 
than  bv  obedience,  and  therefore  to  act  accordingly "  —  and  much  more 
3 


18  LETTERS   TO   TUB 

to  the  same  effect.  He  also  charges  Dr.  Tyler  with  maintaining  theories 
which  "  lead,  by  legitimate  consequence,  to  Universalism,  Infidelity,  and  to 
Atheism." 

I  need  not  inform  you,  sir,  that  the  above  extracts  are  taken  from  an  article 
which  was  published  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  September,  1832  ;  that  "im- 
mediately after  its  publication,  Dr.  Tyler  wrote  to  the  Editor,  inquiring 
whether  he  might  be  permitted  to  reply  to  it  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  and 
was  informed,  that  no  reply  could  be  admitted,  unless  it  was  a  short  letter  of 
a  page  or  two  accompanied  by  such  remarks  as  the  Editor  might  see  fit  to 
append  to  it  ;"  that,  though  Dr.  Taylor  has  been  publicly  called  upon  to 
retract  or  substantiate  these  charges  ;  yet,  to  this  day,  he  has  not  deigned  to 
do  either.  Allow  me  to  ask,  with  the  expectation  of  receiving  an  explicit  ?n- 
swer  —  Am  I  right,  or  am  I  wrong,  in  saying  that  Dr.  Taylor,  in  writing  that 
article  "  the  Association  of  Gentlemen  "  in  approving  of  its  publication,  and 
the  Editor  in  denying  to  the  accused  an  opportunity  of  self-defence,  in  the 
periodical  which  had  been  pledged  "  to  advocate  that  system  of  doctrines 
which  has  generally  prevailed  in  the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian 
churches,"  and  in  which  the  charges  were  preferred  ;  did  design  a  solemn 
protest  against  theories  of  the  orthodox,  as  tending,  by  legitimate  consequence, 
to  the  most  shocking  heresies?  Dr.  Taylor,  you  know,  in  the  same  commu- 
nication, says,  that  "  the  principle  advocated  by  Dr.  Tyler  and  others,  is  the 
very  same  which  in  the  hands  of  Voltaire  and  other  enemies  of  the  gospel,  has 
spread  infidelity  and  atheism  to  such  a  fearful  extent  throughout  Europe ;" 
and  that  it  is  "  inconsistency  which  saves  those  who  maintain  this  theory, 
from  being  the  verij  worst  of  heretics."  While  we  remain,  by  public  charges, 
associated  with  "Voltaire  and  other  enemies  of  the  gospel,"  as  having  em- 
braced the  very  same  principle  which  "  has  spread  infidelity  and  atheism 
to  such  a  fearful  extent  through  Europe  ;"  do  you  think  that  we  shall  be 
convinced  that  there  are  only  "some  shades  of  difference"  between  us  and 
our  accusers  ?  If,  as  it  is  said,  there  is  only  an  "inconsistency"  which  sep- 
arates between  us  and  "  the  very  worst  of  heretics"  is  it  calculated  "to  re- 
move misunderstanding ;"  is  it  of  any  use  ;  is  it  consistent ;  is  it  right  in  the 
sight  of  God,  or  in  the  sight  of  men,  —  to  represent  the  differences  between 
us  and  brethren  of  the  New  Haven  school,  as  respecting  "  minor  points  ?" 

But  will  you  say  that  Dr.  Taylor  did  virtually  retract  these  charges,  by 
affirming,  in  a  subsequent  article,  that  he  and  Dr.  Tyler  were  perfectly  agreed  ? 
No,  sir,  Dr.  Taylor  did  not  retract  these  charges.  He  only  represented  Dr. 
Tyler  as  having  abandoned  his  principles,  when  he  had  not ;  and  I  am  author- 
ized to  say  that  he  has  not  to  this  day  abandoned  a  principle  which  he  main- 
tained in  the  discussion.  Here  allow  me  to  add,  that  nothing  which  has  been 
published  in  this  unhappy  controversy,  has  been  read  with  more  surprise, 
than  the  article  to  which  I  allude  ;  nothing  has  inflicted  a  deeper  wound. 
How  Dr.  Taylor,  after  having  brought  such  charges  of  heresy  against  Dr. 
Tyler,  without  retracting  any  thing  himself,  or  showing  that  his  opponent  had 
retracted  any  of  his  principles,  could  affirm  conscientiously,  that  they  were 
perfectly  agreed,  is  what  many  persons  find  it  difficult  to  see.  Here  is  a  mis- 
understanding, which  demands  attention,  and  by  the  removal  of  which,  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  aggrieved,  you  will  perform  an  important  service. 

It  is  true  Dr.  Taylor  says,  that  "if  his  representation  is  ivoundin^,  let  the 
theory  that  justifies  it  be  abandoned,  and  the  wound  will  be  healed."  But 
what  theory  is  it  necessary  for  the  orthodox  to  abandon  ?  What  principles 
are  to  be  given  up  that  the  wound  may  be  healed."     Why,  principles  which 


M.V.    LEONARD    BACOH.  19 

are  embraced  in  the  confession  of  faith  to  which  Dr.  Taylor  assented  when 
he  was  inducted  into  office  as  Dwight  Professor  of  Diadactic  Theology  in 
Yale  College  ;  principles  which  have  been  embodied  in  every  orthodox  creed 
which  has  been  formed  since  the  Reformation.  And  does  he  demand  such 
an  abandonment  of  principle,  before  the  wound  can  be  healed  ;  and,  at  the 
same  time,  docs  he  consider  the  difference  between  him  and  his  orthodox 
brethren  as  merely  philosophical  ?  Were  they,  in  his  estimation,  merely  phi- 
losophical, would  ho  not,  long  ago,  have  retracted  the  solemn  charges  which 
he  brought  against  Dr.  Tyler,  and  consequently  against  the  great  body  of 
evangelical  ministers  and  churches? 

I  have  now  presented  you  some  of  the  reasons  why  I  can  not  believe  that 
the  differences  under  consideration,  are  differences  of  a  philosophical  rather 
than  of  a  theological  nature. 

Your  friend  and  brother, 

GEORGE  A.  CALHOUN. 

Coventry,  December  13,  1839. 


He  t  te  r  IE  JT. 

Dear  Sir —  Before  noticing  the  contents  of  some  of  your  earlier  communi- 
cations, I  will  come  directly  to  a  consideration  of  the  Protest  of  the  Pastoral 
Union,  by  which  you  appear  to  be  greatly  disturbed.  An  important  question, 
in  relation  to  which  we  are  at  issue  is  first  to  be  settled.  Had  the  Pastoral 
Union  a  right  to  protest  against  sentiments  which  they  deemed  to  be  erroneous? 
You  seem  to  deny  them  that  right ;  and  I  ask,  on  what  do  you  ground  the 
denial  ?  Have  you  not  occupied  the  public  attention  for  nearly  four  months 
past,  and  about  thirty  columns  of  a  religious  newspaper,  in  protesting  against 
the  supposed  errors  of  the  Pastoral  Union  ?  I  do  not  deny  you  the  right  of 
occupying,  in  this  way,  as  much  time  and  space  as  you  think  proper.  But, 
have  your  brethren  of  the  Pastoral  Union  no  rights  ?  Must  they,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course,  endorse  all  the  opinions  which  you  and  your  associates  are 
pleased  to  publish?  And  have  they  committed  a  great  offence,  by  ex- 
pressing, in  a  few  sentences,  their  views  of  sentiments  made  public  ?  Does  not 
every  man  claim  the  right  of  testifying  against  that  which  he  considers  wrong, 
in  sentiment  or  practice  ?  The  conductors  of  the  Christian  Spectator,  for  a 
course  of  years,  protested  against  what  they  regarded  errors,  and  pointed  out 
their  supposed  evil  tendencies.  The  writer,  even  of  a  newspaper  paragraph, 
claims  the  right  of  expressing  his  views  of  published  documents.  And  surely 
this  right,  possessed  by  individuals,  should  not  be  denied  to  bodies  of  men,  act- 
ing in  their  collective  capacity.  What  bodies  of  men  are  there,  who  do  not 
claim  the  right  of  expressing  their  united  opinions  on  subjects  properly  brought 
before  them  ?  Have  medical  conventions  assumed  a  right  not  their  own,  in 
testifying  against  the  use  of  intoxicating  drinks  ?  Do  political  conventions 
dream  of  infringing  the  rights  of  others,  when  they  express  their  opposition  to 
political  sentiments  ?  And  have  not  they,  who  are  watchmen  on  the  walls  of 
Zion,  a  right  to  protest  against  what  they  sincerely  believe  to  be  erroneous 
doctrines  ?  And  are  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union  alone  to  be  denied  this 
right,  and  to  be  made  responsible  for  opinions  which  they  feel  bound  in  con- 
science to  oppose  ?  Where,  then,  are  our  religious  liberties  ?  I  claim  that 
the  Pastoral  Union  possess  a  right,  not  to  be  questioned  by  any  man,  or  any 


20  LETTERS    TO    THE 

association  of  men,  to  protest  against  those  sentiments,  which  they  regard  as 
erroneous. 

You  say,  "  This  protest  was  originally  designed  to  be  a  solemn  contradic- 
tion to  the  testimony  which  Dr.  Taylor  had  recently  given  to  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Churches."  And  what  if  it  was  ?  Was  not 
the  "  testimony  which  Dr.  Taylor  had  recently  given  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  Presbyterian  Church  originally  designed  to  be  a  solemn  contradic- 
tion "  to  the  known  opinions,  and  often  repeated  declarations  of  members  of 
the  Pastoral  Union  ?  And  if  he  possessed  a  right,  to  state  his  opinions,  at 
Philadelphia,  had  not  they  a  right  to  express  theirs,  at  East-Windsor  ?  Dr. 
Taylor  said,  "  The  churches  are  harmonious.  I  suppose  among  ministers, 
there  has  never  been  less  difference  of  theological  opinion  than  there  is  to-day." 
This  statement  was  read  with  great  surprise  ;  and  I  presume  there  was  not 
a  member  of  the  Pastoral  Union  who  did  not  believe  it  to  be  incorrect.  And 
might  they  not  say  so  ?  You  appear,  my  brother.,  to  go  on  the  supposition, 
that  we  have  not  equal  privileges  with  yourself  and  associates.  Certainly 
there  is  no  privileged  order  among  Congregationalists. 

But  you  ask,  "  Why  was  not  this  declaration  made  by  the  General  Asso- 
ciation ?"  —  I  do  not  know  that  it  devolves  on  me  any  more  than  on  yourself 
to  answer  this  question ;  yet  I  will  refer  you  to  a  few  facts  which  may  cast 
some  light  on  the  subject.  Dr.  Taylor  did  not  present,  as  it  is  expected  of 
those  who  have  been  delegates  to  foreign  bodies,  either  a  written  or  verbal 
report  of  his  conduct  at  Philadelphia  ;  but  merely  referred  the  Association  to 
what  was  published  in  the  newspapers,  as  a  correct  account  of  his  procedure. 
Members  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  who  were  also  members  of  the  General  As- 
sociation generally  did  not  know  what  was  published.  The  member,  "  from 
Tolland  county,"  on  his  way  to  the  meeting  of  the  Association,  incidentally 
learned  the  course  which  our  delegates  to  the  General  Assembly  had  pur- 
sued ;  and,  during  the  session,  he  expressed  his  disapprobation  of  Dr.  Taylors 
conduct,  in  engaging  in  the  contentions  of  our  Presbyterian  brethren,  and  in 
pledging  the  sympathies  of  the  body  which  he  represented,  exclusively  to  one 
fragment  of  this  church.  But,  had  Dr.  Taylor  informed  the  meeting,  of  which 
he  was  moderator,  of  what  he  had  said,  and  done,  as  their  delegate,  at  Phila- 
delphia, as  a  rule  of  the  Association  demanded  of  him  ;  and  thus  had  prepared 
the  way  for  an  expression  of  approbation,  or  disapprobation  of  his  conduct ; 
even  then,  what  could  members  of  the  Association,  who  were  members  of  the 
Pastoral  Union,  have  done  in  bringing  him  to  an  account  ?  —  They  were  given 
to  understand,  at  an  early  period  of  the  session,  in  language  unequivocal, .that 
they  would  not  be  allowed  the  privilege,  even  of  recording  their  dissent,  from 
any  acts  of  that  meeting.  "  The  motion."  you  say,  "  might  have  been  made, 
and  when  it  had  been  rejected,  those  who  had  been  voted  down,  might  have 
protested,  either  there,  or  elsewhere,  as  the  case  might  seem  to  require." 
That  they  could  not  have  protested  "  there"  you  and  I  both  knowr.  The 
case  did  seem  to  require,  that  they  should  protest  "  elsewhere  ; "  and  they 
have  done  it,  and  where  is  the  fault? — I  admit,  that  it  would  have  been 
proper  for  the  General  Association  to  have  made  this  Protest.  But  there 
was  in  the  meeting  a  large  number  of  Dr.  Taylor's  students  and  others  of  like 
theological  sympathies,  sufficient  to  constitute  a  small  majority,  and  it  was  not 
done.  If  they  neglected  their  duty,  is  that  a  reason  why  the  Pastoral  Union 
should  remain  silent,  and  prove  themselves  recreant  to  the  cause  of  truth  and 
righteousness  ? 

But,  you  say  again,  "  The  Protest  appears  to  have  been  designed  as  an  ex- 


HEV.    LEONARD    BACON.  21 

press  contradiction  of  the  formal  testimony  of  the  General  Association  of 
1837."  You  refer  to  the  following  statement,  in  their  report  on  the  state  of 
religion.  "  The  churches  in  connection  with  the  Association  are  generally 
peaceful  and  harmonious.  And  though  among  ministers  there  are  shades  of 
difference  in  theological  views,  yet  they  are  not  such  as  need  to  prevent,  and 
we  are  happy  to  believe  they  will  not  prevent  the  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the 
bond  of  peace."  This,  you  inform  me,  was  the  testimony  of  the  General  Asso- 
ciation of  1837,  when  the  old  school  brethren  had  a  majority. 

Here,  let  me  remind  you  of  some  facts,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  which 
you  seem  to  have  forgotten.  The  report  on  the  state  of  religion,  from  which 
the  above  is  an  extract,  was  written  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dutton,  of  Guilford.  It 
was  not  presented  to  the  Association  till  just  at  the  close  of  the  session,  after 
some  of  the  brethren  had  left.  There  was  connected  with  it  another  asser- 
tion to  this  effect :  —  that  the  difference  of  theological  views  among  ministers, 
was  not  greater  than  it  had  been  for  the  last  fifty  years.  A  motion  was  made, 
that  the  whole  be  stricken  out,  and,  after  much  discussion,  it  was  lost,  by  the 
casting  vote  of  the  moderator,  Dr.  Porter,  of  Farmington.  There  is  positive 
proof  that  had  all  the  members  been  present,  the  motion  would  have  pre- 
vailed. As  it  was,  a  vote  was  passed,  to  strike  out  the  assertion  relating  to 
thr  last  fifty  years .  —  As  you  was  a  witness  of  the  transactions  of  that  Asocia- 
tion,  and  may  have  mingled  in  some  out-door  consultations,  can  you  tell  me, 
why  Mr.  Dutton  presented  the  report  on  the  state  of  religion  at  so  late  a  pe- 
riod of  the  meeting  ?  And,  since  you  have  seen  fit  to  represent  this  testimony 
to  be  the  testimony  of  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  equally  ivith  others, 
you  will  not  consider  me  impertinent,  if  I  ask  another  question  :  —  did  not  you, 
and  some  other  gentlemen,  who  were  present  as  spectators,  know,  before  the 
report  was  presented  to  the  Association,  that  it  would  embrace  the  testimony 
of  which  you  speak,  if  the  sanction  of  the  body  could  be  gained  ?  I  need  not 
ask,  whether  every  member  of  the  Association,  and  every  spectator  present, 
did  not  then  know,  that  all  "  the  orthodox  "  members  bore  their  decided  testi- 
mony against  each  of  these  assertions,  as  false,  and  calculated  to  mislead  the 
public  mind.  You  have  surely  presented  a  striking  case  of  injustice,  to  a  mi- 
nority of  a  body,  whose  records  of  dissent  are  not  allowed. 

But,  sir,  I  know  not,  that  the  Pastoral  Union  at  the  time  of  adopting  the 
Protest,  thought  of  this  testimony  of  the  General  Association.  To  my  knowl- 
edge, not  a  word  was  said  in  relation  to  it.  But,  suppose  they  did  call  this  tes- 
timony to  mind  ?  And  what  if  it  was,  as  you  assert,  their  design  to  protest 
against  this  testimony  1  I  know  not  that  there  was  any  impropriety  in  it.  In 
the  Association,  they  had  borne  witness  against  it ;  as,  in  their  opinion,  false, 
and  injurious  ;  and,  when  they  had  afterwards  been  made  responsible  for  it  to 
the  public,  had  they  not  a  right  to  protest  "  elsewhere  ?" 

But,  do  the  errors  against  which  the  Pastoral  Union  have  protested,  exist, 
and  extensively  prevail  in  the  State  ?  —  That  they  exist,  and  have  been  pub- 
licly maintained,  there  can  be  no  question:  for  they  are  mostly  taken  verbatim, 
or  nearly  so,  from  periodicals,  and  pamphlets,  which  have  been  printed,  and  ex- 
tensively circulated  in  the  State,  within  the  last  few  years.  You  admit,  that 
they  consist  mostly  of  extracts  from  published  writings  ;  but  you  assert,  that 
"  the  errors  as  stated  consist  chiefly  of  misconstrued  extracts  from  the  writings 
of  Dr.  Taylor."  Misconstrued  extracts  I !  The  Pastoral  Union,  knowing, 
that  the  New  Haven  brethren  had  reiterated  the  complaint,  that  their  senti- 
ments were  misstated,  and  misunderstood  ;  adopted  a  course  which  they  sup- 
posed no  person  could  censure.     And  do  you  mean  to  say,  that  the  Pastoral 


23  LETTERS    TO    THE 

Union  have  misconstrued  these  extracts  ?  This  appears  to  be  your  meaning  ; 
tor  you  insist  upon  it,  that  they  attach  to  the  language  of  these  extracts  a 
meaning,  which  it  was  not  intended  to  convey.  I  must  deny  the  odious 
charge  ;  and  I  entertain  the  hope,  that  you  will  consider  it  your  duty  and 
privilege  to  retract  it.  Are  these  extracts  misconstrued,  by  merely  quoting 
them,  without  note  or  comment  ?  The  Pastoral  Union  have  not  told  you,  what 
meaning  they  attach  to  the  language  of  these  extracts ;  and  you  have  no 
right  to  charge  them  with  giving  to  the  language  any  other  meaning  than  that 
which  it  obviously  expresses.  The  language  is  simple,  and  its  import,  it  is  be- 
lieved, is  easily  discovered.  There  are  in  the  Pastoral  Union,  men  who  have 
received  the  highest  honors  of  Yale  College,  others  who  have  been  employed 
as  instructors  in  that  venerable  institution,  some  who  have  sat  for  years  at 
the  feet  of  Dr.  Taylor,  as  theological  students,  and  others,  still,  who  have  min- 
istered acceptably  to  the  intelligent  congregations  of  New-Haven :  —  are 
there  not  then  men  in  the  Pastoral  Union  who  are  capable  of  understanding 
their  own  mother  tongue  ?  My  dear  sir,  what  is  the  matter  at  Neiv  Haven  ? 
Is  it  true,  after  all  the  attempts  which  Dr.  Taylor,  and  his  learned  friends, 
have  made,  for  the  last  ten  years,  to  give  an  exposition  of  his  language,  that  it 
is  even  now  impossible  for  his  brethren  in  the  ministry  to  understand  him  ? 
Or  can  not  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  who  were  educated  and  honored 
at  Yale  College,  understand  plain  English  ? 

The  following  reasons  may  have  led  the  Pastoral  Union  to  conclude,  that 
these  errors  extensively  prevail. 

1.  They  have  been  taught,  and  defended,  in  pamphlets  and  periodicals, 
which  have  been  widely  circulated,  and  highly  commended. 

2.  They  have  been  maintained,  and  zealously  propagated,  by  men  whose 
soundness  in  the  faith  has  been  extensively  vindicated. 

3.  They  have  proceeded,  principally,  from  a  theological  school,  where  many 
young  men  have  been  trained  for  the  ministry,  a  large  proportion  of  whom, 
profess  to  agree  with  their  teachers. 

4.  Those  who  have  maintained  and  defended  these  errors,  have  themselves 
claimed,  that  their  views  were  extensively  adopted,  not  only  in  this  State,  but 
in  other  parts  of  the  country.  One  witness  to  the  truth  of  this  declaration, 
whose  knowledge  of  facts  in  the  case,  and  whose  veracity  you  will  not  ques- 
tion, may  be  sufficient  for  the  present.  I  present  you  with  an  extract  of  a 
letter  from  a  distinguished  gentleman  among  yourselves,  addressed  to  one  of 
the  trustees  of  the  Theological  Institute  of  Connecticut,  and  dated  about  the 
time  that  seminary  went  into  operation. 

"  If  the  East  Windsor  Institution  is  right  in  the  contest,  how  large  a  part  of 
the  best  men  and  institutions  in  the  country  are  wrong  '(  Two  of  the  most  pop- 
ular Professors  of  Andover  —  Dr.  Beecher  with  his  overwhelming  influence 
at  the  Lane  Seminary  and  in  the  West  —  Jacksonville  College  in  Illinois  and 
all  its  officers  —  the  Theological  Seminary  of  Tennessee  (Dr.  Anderson's)  — 
with  such  men  as  Dr.  Hawes.  Dr.  Porter,  Mr.  Dutton,  Mr.  McEwren,  Mr. 
Hickock,  Mr.  Andrew,  and  a  very  great  number  more  in  this  State.  Mr. 
Barnes  of  Philadelphia,  Dr.  Wisner,  Mr.  Winslow,  and  Mr.  Linsley  of  Boston, 
and  hundreds  of  others  in  every  part  of  our  country  must  all  share  in  the  same 
condemnation  with  ourselves." 

Now,  Sir,  I  submit  it  to  your  decision,  whether  the  reasons  suggested,  were 
not.  sufficient  to  lead  the  Pastoral  Union  to  believe,  that  these  errors  do  ex- 
tensively prevail.  If,  however,  it  should  be  found,  that  in  this  respect,  they 
have  been  mistaken,  I  assure  you,  none  will  rejoice  more  sincerely  than  them- 
selves. 


HEY.    LEONARD    BACON.  2S 

Again,  you  ask,  "  Ought  such  errors  as  these  charges  speak  of,  to  be  toler- 
ated in  the  ministry,  or  within  the  communion  of  the  churches  ?  If  a  man 
holds  '•  radical  "  and  "dangerous  errors,"  —  if  he  advocates  "  errors  subver- 
sive of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel,"  —  if  his  doctrines  are  "  at 
war  with  God's  word  and  fraught  with  imminent  danger  to  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  Zion,"  —  if  he  holds  and  advocates  doctrines  which  can  not  be 
countenanced  in  our  churches"  without  incurring  "the  frown  of  a  justly  of- 
fended God,"  —  "  if  he  boldly  and  perseveringly  assails  "  those  scriptural  doc- 
trines "  which  are  "  the  basis  of  the  peace  and  purity  of  our  churches,"  — 
ought  he  not  to  be  dealt  with  as  an  offender  ?  Can  you  recognize  such  a  man 
as  a  minister  of  the  gospel  ?  Can  you  hold  communion  with  him  as  one  who 
has  "  obtained  like  precious  faith  "  with  yourself?  Is  there  not  a  regular  way 
under  our  ecclesiastical  system,  to  deal  with  such  errorists  ?  What  is  that 
regular  way  ?  Is  it  the  way  which  the  Pastoral  Union  have  taken  in  this 
Protest?" 

Churches  and  associations  of  ministers  are  prone  to  laxness  in  the  discipline 
of  their  members.  Whether  the  Pastoral  Union,  in  this  case,  have  been  too 
lenient  and  forbearing,  I  shall  not  attempt  to  decide.  However  this  may  be, 
I  doubt  not  that  you  will  perceive  that  all  your  questions  may,  with  great  pro- 
priety, be  put  back  to  my  correspondent.  Call  to  mind,  sir,  the  terms  in 
which  the  sentiments  maintained  by  the  Pastoral  Union  have  been  character- 
ized. Dr.  Tyler,  whose  doctrinal  views,  it  is  well  known,  accord  with  those 
of  the  Pastoral  Union  generally,  as  they  do  with  those  of  the  great  body  of 
Calvinistic  ministers,  stands  publicly  charged  with  adopting  principles  which 
involve  the  positions,  that  "  sin  is  a  good  thing"  —  "good  in  itself,"  —  that 
"  when  men  sin  they  do  the  very  best  thing  they  can  do,"  —  that  "  God  is  the 
responsible  author  of  sin," —  that  "  the  Divine  lawgiver  is  a  deceiver," —  that 
"  God  is  a  criminal  tempter,"  —  and  that  "in  no  respect  is  Satan  more  truly 
criminal  as  a  tempter  than  God  is."  He  has  also  been  charged  with  main- 
taining theories  which  "  lead  by  legitimate  consequence  to  universal  ism,  to 
infidelity  and  to  atheism."  Moreover,  it  has  been  asserted,  that  "  the  princi- 
ple advanced  by  Dr.  Tyler  and  others  is  the  very  same,  which  in  the  hands 
of  Voltaire  and  other  enemies  of  the  gospel,  has  spread  infidelity  and  atheism 
to  such  a  fearful  extent  throughout  Europe." 

Now,  allow  me  to  interrogate,  in  your  own  language.  "  Ought  such  errors 
as  these  charges  speak  of,  to  be  tolerated  in  the  ministry,  or  within  the  com- 
munion of  the  churches  ?"  If  a  man  holds  errors  "  respecting  matters  of  (such) 
vital  importance" —  errors  which  are  not  only  "subversive  of  the  fundamen- 
tal doctrines  of  the  gospel,"  but  which  "  lead  by  legitimate  consequence  to 
universalism,  to  infidelity,  and  to  atheism ;  —  if  he  holds  and  defends  princi- 
ples, which  involve  the  blasphemous  sentiments,  that  "  God  is  the  responsible 
author  of  sin  "  that  the  divine  lawgiver  is  a  deceiver  —  that  God  is  a  criminal 
tempter,  as  truly  so  as  Satan  himself —  if  he  asserts  that  "  sin  is  a  good 
thing,"  and  perseveringly  maintains  what  implies  that  '•  when  men  sin  they  do 
the  very  best  thing  they  can  do  ;"  —  and  if  a  principle  which  he  advances,  "  is 
the  very  same  which  in  the  hands  of  Voltaire  and  other  enemies  of  the  gospel, 
has  spread  infidelity  and  atheism  to  such  a  fearful  extent  throughout  Europe  ;" 
—  "  ought  he  not  to  be  dealt  with  as  an  offender  ?"  Can  you  hold  communion 
with  him  as  one  who  has  "obtained  like  precious  faith"  with  yourself?  Is 
there  not  a  regular  way,  under  our  ecclesiastical  system,  to  deal  with  such 
errorists  ?  What  is  that  regular  way  ?  Is  it  the  way  which  "  any  of  your 
party  have  taken  ?"  Is  it  the  way  which  you  have  adopted  in  commencing 
this  correspondence  ? 


24  LETTERS    TO    THE 

But  further,  still,  if  the  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union  have  been  guilty  of 
the  unchristian  and  disorderly  conduct,  which  you  impute  to  them,  ought  they 
not  on  that  account  to  be  dealt  with  as  offenders  ?  If  they  have  slandered 
their  brethren,  and  adopted  measures  tending  "  to  jealousies,  alienation,  and 
schism  in  our  ecclesiastical  commonwealth,"  ought  they  not  to  be  called  to  an 
account  ?  Why  is  it  so,  that  at  this  late  period,  they  have  not  been  dealt  with  ? 
"  Why  is  it,  that  no  pretence  of  an  attempt  has  ever  been  made  to  bring  one 
of  these  offenders  to  a  trial  before  the  proper  tribunal  ?"  Why  is  it,  that  you 
have  not  been  employed  in  arraigning  these  erring  brethren  before  their  re- 
spective Associations,  instead  of  publishing  the  weighty  accusations  against 
them  which  are  contained  in  your  Letters  ?  "  It  is  a  serious  question,  my 
brother ;  give  us  a  manly  answer."  "  In  the  name  of  those  who  are  more 
immediately  aimed  at  in  the  aspersions"  of  your  Letters,  "  in  the  name  of  the 
ministers  and  churches  of  Connecticut,  whom  as  a  body,"  your  Letters  hold 
"up  before  all  Christendom  as"  unchristian  and  disorderly  in  conduct, —  "in 
the  name  of  our  fathers,  who  framed  our  ecclesiastical  constitution,  distinctly 
providing  that  every  pastor  accused  of  '  unchristian  or  disorderly  conduct ' 
shall  be  brought  to  account  fairly  and  openly ;  —  nay,  in  the  name  of  our  com- 
mon Master,  Head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  who,  if  these  charges  are 
true,  is  'justly  offended,'  and  who,  if  they  are  not  true,  shares  in  the  wrong 
done  to  his  servants,  —  I  entreat  you,  tell  us  frankly,  why  these  subverters  of 
the  '  peace  and  order  of  our  ecclesiastical  community,'  are  permitted  to  re- 
tain their  standing  not  only  in  the  communion  of  our  churches,  but  in  the 
ministry." 

I  will  now  consider  your  remarks  on  the  first  error  against  which  the  Pas- 
toral Union  protested.     It  is  set  forth  as  follows : 

"  I.  Concerning  the  Power  of  God."  —  "  That  free  moral  agents  can  do  wrong  under  every 
possible  influence  to  prevent  them,  and  that  it  is  a  groundless  assumption  that  God  could  have 
prevented  all  sin,  or  at  least  the  present  degree  of  sin  in  a  moral  system." 

You  admit,  that  this  error  is  expressed  in  the  identical  language,  which 
has  been  used  and  defended  in  the  recent  discussions  respecting  the  moral 
agency  of  man,  and  the  moral  government  of  God  ;  but  you  insist,  that  it  has 
not  been  used  in  the  sense  given  to  it  by  the  Pastoral  Union.  Allow  me  to 
ask  again,  for  the  authority  you  have  to  make  this  declaration.  The  Pastoral 
Union  have  not  explained  the  language.  They  have  barely  quoted  it.  They 
may  have  considered  it  so  explicit  as  to  need  no  exposition.  That  they  de- 
signed to  express  the  very  sense,  which  they  who  had  used  this  language 
intended,  there  is  abundant  proof.  And  how  is  it  known,  that  they  do  not 
understand  this  language  in  precisely  the  same  sense  in  which  you  understand 
it  yourself?  That  they  do,  can  you  have  the  shadow  of  a  doubt?  But  you 
say,  they  call  it  an  error  "  concerning  the  power  of  God  ;"  whereas  you  con- 
tend, if  it  is  an  error,  it  is  not  an  error  '  concerning  the  power  of  God,'  but 
concerning  moral  agency,  and  moral  government.  The  point  at  issue,  then, 
if  I  understand  you,  is  not  whether  the  extract  contains  a  dangerous  error  ; 
but  whether  it  is  an  error  "  concerning  the  power  of  God."  But  where  is 
the  inconsistency,  I  would  ask,  in  supposing,  that  an  error  relating  to  moral 
agency  and  moral  government,  may  relate  also  to  the  power  of  God  ?  What 
was  the  question  in  debate,  between  Dr.  Taylor  and  his  opponents,  to  which 
this  language  refers  ?  Did  it  not  relate  to  what  God  can,  and  what  God  can 
not  do,  in  the  government  of  moral  agents  ?  What  is  the  doctrine  commonly 
received,  which  Dr.  Taylor  called  in  question  ?  Was  it  not  this,  that  God 
can  so  govern  moral  agents  as  to  secure  universal  holiness  in  a  moral  system  ? 


KEV.    LEOAARD    BACOn.  25 

And  did  not  Dr.  Taylor  contend,  that  to  suppose  God  able  to  do  this,  is  a 
groundless  assumption  ?  Furthermore,  did  he  not  affirm,  in  a  very  solemn 
manner,  that  to  suppose  God  able  to  secure  universal  holiness  in  a  moral  sys- 
tem, "  leads  by  legitimate  consequence  to  universalism,  to  infidelity,  and  to 
atheism  '7  Please  to  '  notice  some  of  Dr.  Taylor's  statements.  —  He  says, 
"  Dr.  Tyler  maintains,  that  God  can  secure  the  holiness  and  happiness  of  all 
his  moral  creatures.  It  follows  therelbre  that  God  will  secure  the  holiness 
and  happiness  of  ail  his  moral  creatures.  Of  course  all  men  will  be  saved.** 
—  Christian  Spectator,  1838,  page  432.  Has  the  question,  then,  no  refer- 
ence to  the  power  of  God  ?  Dr.  Taylor  here  expressly  affirms,  that  if  God 
can  secure  the  holiness  and  happiness  of  all  his  moral  creatures,  he  certainly 
will  do  it.  And  what  is  this  but  saying,  that  nothing  but  the  want  of  power 
on  the  part  of  God  prevents  him  from  rendering  all  his  moral  creatures  holy 
and  happy  ?  And  will  you  still  say,  that  the  question  has  no  relation  to  the 
power  of  God  ?  Consider  also  the  following  statement.  "  God  not  only 
prefers,  on  the  whole,  that  his  creatures  should  forever  perform  their  duties 
rather  than  neglect  them,  but  purposes,  on  his  part,  to  do  all  in  his  power  to 
promote  this  very  object  in  his  kingdom."  —  Christian  Spectator,  1832,  page 
66'J.  Why  does  not  God  secure  universal  obedience  among  his  moral  crea- 
tures ?  If  this  statement  is  correct,  it  is  because  he  has  not  power  to  do  it ; 
for  we  are  assured,  that  he  purposes  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  secure  this  very 
object  in  his  kingdom.  And,  still,  has  the  question  under  consideration  no 
relation  to  the  power  of  God  ?  You  will  permit  me  to  advert  to  one  or  two 
other  statements.  "We  know  that  a  moral  system  necessarily  implies  the 
existence  of  free  agents  with  the  power  to  act  in  despite  of  all  opposing 
power.  —  Christian  Spectator,  1831,  page,  67.  Does  not  all  opposing  power 
include  the  power  of  God  1  "  Would  not  a  benevolent  God,  then,  were  it 
possible  to  him  in  the  nature  of  things  have  secured  the  existence  of  universal 
noliness  in  his  moral  system  ?"  —  Dr.  Taylor's  Concio,  page  28.  Why  then 
does  not  God  secure  the  existence  of  universal  holiness  in  his  moral  system  ? 
Because,  according  to  this  statement,  it  is  not  possible  for  him  to  do  it.  And 
will  you,  sir,  yet  tell  me,  the  question  has  no  relation  to  the  power  of  God  ? 
Let  us  read  the  language,  quoted  in  the  Protest,  in  connection  with  the  fore- 
going extracts.  — "  That  free  moral  agents  can  do  wrong  under  every  possible 
influence  to  prevent  them,  and  that  it  is  groundless  assumption  that  God 
could  have  prevented  all  sin,  or  at  least  the  present  degree  of  sin,  in  a  moral 
system."  Can  there  be  any  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  passage  ?  After 
all  which  has  been  published  on  this  subject,  do  you  really  believe,  that  the 
very  point  in  dispute  is  not  yet  understood  I  Does  not  every  intelligent  man, 
who  has  attended  to  this  discussion,  know  what  this  passage  means;  and 
know  too,  that  the  Pastoral  Union  understands  its  import,  and  have  not  mis- 
construed it  ? 

Like  some  modern  preaching,  with  which  godly  persons  have  been  afflicted, 
your  reasoning  on  this  subject  seems  to  imply,  that  in  your  view,  the  power 
of  God  has  nothing  to  do  in  governing  moral  agents,  and  preserving  them  in 
a  state  of  holiness,  any  more  than  it  has  in  causing  a  thing  to  be  and  not  to  be 
at  the  same  time  ;  or  in  preventing  an  equilateral  triangle  from  being  equilan- 
gular  ;  or  in  doing  any  other  thing  which  implies  a  contradiction.  How  then 
do  you  interpret  these  passages  of  Scripture:  —  "Now  unto  him  that  is  able 
to  keep  you  from  falling,"  &c.  "  Who  are  kept  by  the  power  of  God  through 
faith  unto  salvation." 

Admit  the  question  in  dispute  to  b*  as  you  represent  it,  —  "Whether  to 

4 


20  LETTERS   TO   THE 

suppose  God  able  so  to  govern  mora!  agents  as  to  secure  universal  holiness 
in  his  moral  kingdom,  implies  a  contradiction  1"  Still  the  question  relates  to 
the  power  of  God.  It  resolves  itself  into  another  question,  (viz.)  whether 
thus  to  govern  moral  agents  is  an  object  of  divine  power  ?  If  it  is  an  object 
of  divine  power,  and  does  not  imply  a  contradiction,  do  not  those  who  affirm 
the  contrary,  "  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God  "?  And 
since  the  Pastoral  Uniim  do  believe,  that  God's  omnipotence  implies  power  to 
exercise  absolute  and  unlimited  control  over  the  moral  universe,  have  they 
commitcd  any  oiience  in  denominating  the  opinion  of  those  who  call  this  sub- 
lime doctrine  in  question,  an  error  ''concerning  the  jmver  of  God"? 

Suppose  a  person  should  say  to  you,  —  It  is  a  groundless  assumption,  that 
God  could  have  created  one  more  particle  of  matter  than  he  has  created. 
Suppose  he  should  go  farther,  and  say,  —  If  God  could  have  created  more 
matter,  he  certainly  would  have  done  it,  and  to  suppose  he  could,  "  leads  by 
legitimate  consequence  to  universal 'ism,  to  infidcliti/,  and  to  atheism."  — You 
say  to  him,  you  seem  to  advance  principles,  which  are  inconsistent  with  God's 
omnipotence.  No,  he  answers,  —  This  is  a  slanderous  accusation.  "  I  hold 
and  teach  that  the  power  of  God  is  absolutely  infinite,  and  that  no  addition  to 
the  power  of  God  can  by  any  possible  stretch  of  the  imagination  be  conceived 
of.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  I  hold  that  omnipotence  itself  can  not  do  a  contra- 
diction." "  What  I  mean  is,  to  suppose  God  able  to  create  another  particle 
of  matter  would  be  a  contradiction,  as  much  as  to  suppose  him  able  to  cause 
two  and  two  to  be  five,  or  to  prevent  an  equilateral  triangle  from  being  equian- 
gular." Would  you  be  satisfied,  my  brother,  with  this  reasoning  ?  After  all, 
would  you  not  be  strongly  inclined  to  believe,  that  this  man  was  in  some  error 
"  concerning  the  power  of  God  "? 

In  reference  to  the  practical  importance  of  this  error,  I  will  give  you  the 
opinion  of  one,  whose  praise  has  long  been  in  the  churches,  and  whose  memory 
is  exceedingly  precious  now  that  his  body  has  returned  to  the  dust. 

"  If  God  could  not  prevent  sin  in  the  universe,  he  cannot  prevent  believers 
from  fatally  falling  ;  he  cannot  prevent  Gabriel  and  Paul  from  sinking  at  once 
into  devils,  and  heaven  from  turning  into  hell.  And  were  he  to  create  new 
races  to  fill  their  vacant  seats,  they  might  turn  to  devils  as  fast  as  he  created 
them,  in  spite  of  any  thing  which  he  could  do,  short  of  destroying  their  moral 
agency.  He  is  liable  to  be  defeated  in  his  designs,  and  to  be  as  miserable  as 
he  is  benevolent.  —  This  is  infinitely  the  gloomiest  idea  that  was  ever  thrown 
upon  the  world.  It  is  gloomier  than  hell  itself.  For  this  involves  only  the 
destruction  of  a  part,  but  that  involves  the  wretchedness  of  God  and  his 
whole  creation.  And  how  awfully  gloomy  as  it  respects  the  prospects  of 
individual  believers.  You  have  no  security  that  you  will  stand  an  hour.  And 
even  if  you  get  to  heaven,  you  have  no  certainty  of  rema;ning  there  a  day. 
All  is  doubt  and  sepulchral  gloom.  And  where  is  the  glory  of  God  ?  Where 
the  transcendent  glorv  of  raising  to  spiritual  life  a  world  dead  in  trespasses 
and  sins  ?  Where  the  glory  of  swaying  an  undivided  sceptre  and  doing 
his  pleasure  '  in  the  army  of  heaven  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth'?" 
—  Griffin  on  Divine  Efficiency,  pp.  180,  181. 

In  conclusion,  my  brother,  why  may  we  not  be  permitted  now  to  unite 
with  the  apostle,  in  saying,  "Now  unto  him  that  is  able  to  do  exceeding 
abundantly  above  all  that  we  ask  or  think,  according  to  the  power  that  ivorketh 
in  us  ;  unto  him  be  the  glory  in  the  church,  by  Christ  Jesus,  throughout  all 
ages,  world  without  end.     Amen."         Your  friend  and  brother, 

GEORGE  A.  CALHOUN. 

Coventry,  December  20,  1839. 


RBV.    LEONARD    BACON.  27 


Setter  2F , 

Dear  Sir,  —  The  next  article  in  the  Protest  of  the  Pastoral  Union  is  thus 
stated : 

"II.  Concerning  tup.  Native  Character  op  Man." — "That mankind  conic  into  the  world 
with  the  same  nature  in  kind  as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created  ;  that  men  have  no  natural 
sinful  propensities;  that  there  is  a  period  subsequent  to  birth,  during  which  they  have  no  moral 
character,  and  are  not  subject  to  the  mural  government  of"  God,  and  that  animals  and  infants, 
previous  to  this  supposed  beginning  of  moral  agency  stand  in  precisely  the  same  relation  to  this 
subject." 

In  commenting  on  this  article  you  say,  "  The  statement  of  the  Protest  under 
this  second  head  is  a  statement  partly  of  propositions  which  none  of  our  min- 
isters hold  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Pastoral  Union  imputes  them,  and  partly 
of  propositions  which,  if  erroneous,  are  still  sanctioned  by  names  which  the 
Protesters  themselves  wrould  be  the  last  to  treat  with  disrespect." 

This  assertion  embraces  two  questions  for  discussion. 

I.  Have  these  propositions  been  maintained  by  any  of  our  ministers  ?  — 
Compare  them  with  the  following  quotations  and  then  judge. 

Dr.  Taylor  in  his  reply  to  Dr.  Tyler  in  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims  Volume  vi. 
page  5,  says,  "I  did  admit,  as  he  says,  that  mankind  come  into  the  world  writh 
the  same  nature  in  kind  as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created,"  In  the  Christ- 
ian Spectator  for  183*2,  pp.  548,  549,  we  have  the  following  remarks  from  the 
pen  of  Dr.  Taylor,  "  on  Dr.  Tyler's  theory  respecting  human  depravity."  Dr. 
Tyler  had  asked,  "  what  inconsistency  is  there  in  supposing  that  there  is  in 
man,  a  native  propensity  to  evil,  propagated  from  parent  to  child  like  other 
natural  propensities?"  To  litis  the  Reviewer  replies  —  "On  this  theory, 
then,  we  would  offer  the  following  remarks." 

"1.  It  exhibits  God  as  the  responsible  author  of  sin.  We  suppose  Dr.  Tyler 
believes,  as  others  who  have  advanced  the  same  theory  maintain,  that  tiiis 
propensity  to  sin,  is  itself  sinful,  or  as  another  writer  affirms, '  is  the  essence 
of  sin;  Now  who  will  deny,  that  God  is  the  responsible  author  of  that 
which  he  produces,  whether  by  direct  creation,  or  by  the  physical  laws  of 
propagation  ?  —  God  therefore,  according  to  this  theory,  is  the  responsible 
author  of  that  in  man,  in  which  the  essence  of  sin  consists,  and  actually 
damns  the  soul,  for  being  what  he  makes  it,  or  causes  it  to  be  by  physical 
laws." 

"  If  Dr.  Tyler  should  say,  that  the  propensity  to  sin  of  which  he  speaks,  is 
innocent,  still  man  as  he  comes  into  being,  is  doomed  to  sin  by  a  natural  and 
fatal  necessity  —  with  such  a  propensity,  nfan  has  not  a  natural  ability  to 
avoid  sin.  This  is  alike  true,  whether  this  propensity  be  supposed  to  be  sin- 
ful or  innocent." 

In  the  Christian  Spectator  for  1829,  we  find  the  following  statement.  "In- 
fants die.  The  answer  has  been  given  a  thousand  times  ;  brutes  die  also. — 
But  Mr.  Harvey  replies, '  animals  arc  not  subjects  of  the  moral  government 
of  God.'  Neither  are  infants,  previous  to  moral  agency  :  for  what  has  moral 
government  to  do  with  those  who  are  not  moral  agents."  "It  has  been 
shown  that  infants  stand  on  precisely  the  same  ground  with  animals  as  far  as 
the  present  question  is  concerned.  For  neither  of  them  are  moral  agents,  nor 
subject  to  moral  government." — "Animals  and  infants  previous  to  moral 
agency,  do  therefore  stand  on  precisely  the  same  ground  in  reference  to  this 
subject."  page  373. 

Again  :  "  A  child  enters  the  world  with  a  variety  of  appetites  and  desires, 


28  letters  to  tub 

which  are  generally  acknowledged  to  be  neither  sinful  nox  holy.  Committed 
in  a  state  of  utter  helplessness  to  the  assiduity  of  parental  fondness,  it  com- 
mences existence,  the  object  of  unceasing  care,  watchfulness,  and  concession, 
to  those  around  it.  Under  such  circumstances  it  is,  that  the  natural  appetites 
are  first  devolved  ;  and  each  advancing  month  brings  them  new  objects  of 
gratification.  The  obvious  consequence  is,  that  self  indulgence  becomes  the 
master  principle  in  the  soul  of  every  child,  long  before  it  can  understand  that 
this  self  indulgence  will  ever  interfere  with  the  rights,  or  entrench  on  the 
happiness  of  others.  Thus  by  repetition  is  the  force  of  constitutional  propen- 
sities accumulating  a  bias  towards  self-gratification,  which  becomes  incrediblv 
strong  before  a  knowledge  of  duty  or  a  sense  of  right  or  wrong,  can  possi- 
bly have  entered  the  mind.  That  moment  —  the  commencement  of  moral 
agency,  at  length  arrives.  Does  the  child  now  come  in  a  state  of  perfect 
neutrality,  to  the  question,  whether  it  will  obey  or  disobey  the  command, 
which  cuts  it  off  from  some  favorite  gratification  ?"  pp.  386,  367. 

Mark  the  assertion  ;  "  self-indulgence  becomes  the  master  principle  in  the 
soul  of  every  child  long  before  it  can  understand,"  &c  ;  that  is,  long  before 
moral  agency  commences. 

Now,  sir,  compare  the  above  extracts  with  the  statement  in  the  Protest. 
Can  you  indeed  say,  that  the  propositions  protested  against,  have  not  been 
maintained  by  any  "  of  our  ministers  ?"  But  you  afnrm,  that  "  they  have  not 
been  held  "  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Pastoral  Union  imputes  them."  The 
sense  in  which  the  Pastoral  Union  imputes  them  !  Pray,  what  is  that  sense  ? 
Can  you  mean  to  intimate,  that  the  Pastoral  Union  are  men  of  such  obtuse 
intellects  that  they  cannot  understand  the  plainest  propositions  ?  Or  do  you 
mean  to  be  understood,  that  the  writers  of  these  extracts  intended  to  express 
what  they  did  not  believe  ?  The  Pastoral  Union  have  published  no  commen- 
tary on  this  language  ;  and  they  doubtless  felt  that  none  was  required.  The 
error  against  which  they  protested  is  that  which  is  clearly  expressed  by  the 
language  itself  understood  in  its  obvious  meaning,  taking  into  view  the  con- 
nection in  which  it  is  used,  and  the  explanations  which  have  been  given  by 
the  writers  themselves.  And  how  is  it  that  you  are  led  to  the  conclusion,  that 
the  Pastoral  Union  do  not  understand  the  language  which  they  have  quoted,  or 
that  they  have  designedly  misconstrued  it ;  when  they  have  merely  quoted  it 
without  a  word  of  explanation  ?  There  certainly  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the 
meaning  of  any  of  the  propositions  in  their  statement,  unless  it  be  the  first 
one,  viz.  "  That  mankind  come  into  the  world  with  the  same  nature  in  kind 
as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created."  And  the  meaning  of  this,  when  we 
take  into  consideration,  the  connection  in  which  it  is  used,  the  object  of  the 
writer,  and  the  scope  of  his  reasoning,  is  quite  apparent,  —  and  what  is  its 
meaning  ?  You  say  ;  ;'  The  proposition  when  fairly  construed,  is  one  which 
you  yourself  believe.  The  nature  with  which  Adam  was  created,  was  simply 
and  completely  human  nature  ;  the  nature  with  which  mankind  come  into  the 
world,  is  simply  and  completely  human  nature  ;  both  are  the  same  in  hind 
with  that  nature  which  Christ  assumed,  and  in  which  he  died.  If  any  man 
in  the  Pastoral  Union  denies  this,  ask  him  to  give  us  the  text  of  scripture 
which  declares,  either  that  Adam  in  Paradise  was  not  a  human  soul  in  a  human 
body,  or  that  his  posterity  do  not  come  into  the  world  human  souls  in  human 
bodies."  This  construction  of  the  proposition,  I  confess,  was  new  to  me,  and 
Itthink  it  must  have  been  new  to  most  of  your  readers.  But,  my  dear  sir,  do 
you  mean  to  say,  that  the  great  point  at  issue  in  the  controversy  between 
J)r.  Taylor  and  his  opponents  in  relation  to  this  subject  was,  whether  the 


RET.    LEONARD    BACON.  29 

posterity  of  Adam  have  human  souls  in  human  bodies  ?  Do  you  honestly 
believe,  that  this  is  all  which  Dr.  Taylor  meant  by  the  declaration,  that  "man- 
kind come  into  the  world  with  the  same  nature  in  kind  as  that  with  which 
Adam  was  created  V  What  bearing  would  such  a  statement  have  upon  the 
points  under  discussion  ?  Call  to  mind  the  question  in  dispute.  It  was,  as 
you  know,  whether  there  is  in  man,  a  natural  hereditary  propensity  to  sin. 
The  supposition  that  mankind  have  such  a  natural  propensity,  is  a  sentiment 
which  Dr.  Taylor  represents  as  leading  to  the  most  horrible  and  blasphemous 
consequences  —  as  making  God  the  responsible  author  of  sin,  &c,  Sic.  It 
was  in  opposition  to  this  sentiment  that  Dr.  Taylor  asserted,  that "  mankind 
come  into  the  world  with  tin  same  nature  in  kind  as  that  with  which  Adam 
was  created.'"  His  meaning  therefore  without  doubt  was,  that  mankind  come 
into  the  world  as  free  from  depravity,  or  from  any  natural  propensity  to  sin, 
as  Adam  was  when  he  was  created.  If  this  was  not  his  meaning,  his  asser- 
tion had  no  relevancy  to  the  point  under  consideration. 

You  inquire  whether  "  this  proposition  affirms  any  thing  respecting  the 
native  character  of  man  ?"  Allow  me  to  ask,  was  it  not  intended  to  affirm 
that  man  has  no  "native  character?"  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  comes 
into  the  world  without  any  moral  character  ?  Do  you  not  know,  that  those 
who  have  maintained  this  proposition,  have  held  that  Adam  was  created  with- 
out a  moral  character  ? 

You  say,  "  I  believe  that  the  distinction  between  moral  character  and  phy- 
sical constitution,  is  recognized  by  all  of  us  —  by  the  members  of  the  Pastoral 
Union  as  well  as  by  others."  —  The  correctness  of  this  remark  depends  on 
the  meaning  which  you  attach  to  the  expression  "physical  constitution."  "  The 
term  physical,"  President  Day  observes,  "  when  taken  by  itself,  is  a  word  of 
very  vague  signification.  — But  when  combined  with  another  ambiguous  term, 
it  forms  a  compound,  the  meaning  of  which  is  still  more  multifarious"  —  "It 
is  one  of  those  pliable  words,  which  may  be  made  to  mean  one  thing,  or  another, 
any  thing,  or  nothing,  as  occasion  may  require."  Your  term,  therefore, 
should  have  been  defined.  If  you  mean  by  physical  constitution,  man's  bodily 
organization,  or  the  substance  of  the  soul,  or  the  possession  of  intellectual 
powers ;  it  is  doubtless  true  that  no  one  considers  these  things  as  constituting 
moral  character.  But  if  by  "  physical  constitution,"  you  mean  all  that  is  nat- 
ural to  man,  all  which  he  inherits  from  his  ancestors,  there  are  those  who  do 
not  recognize  your  distinction.  There  are  those  who  believe  man  has  a  moral 
nature,  as  well  as  a  corporeal  nature,  and  an  intellectual  nature  —  that  he 
possesses  a  heart,  or  disposition,  as  well  as  an  understanding.  They  believe 
that  man  is  so  constituted,  that  when  objects  are  presented  to  his  mind,  he 
does  not  view  them  with  indifference  ;  but  he  likes  or  dislikes,  loves  or  hates 
them. — They  believe  with  President  Edwards,  that  "human  nature  must 
be  created  wiih  some  dispositions ;  a  disposition  to  relish  some  things  as  good 
and  amiable,  and  to  be  averse  to  other  things  as  odious  and  disagreeable. — 
Otherwise  it  must  be  without  any  such  thing  as  inclination  or  will.  It  must 
be  perfectly  indifferent  without  preference,  without  choice  or  aversion  towards 
any  thing  as  agreeable  or  disagreeable.  But  if  it  had  any  concreated  dispo- 
sitions at  all,  tiny  must  be  either  right  or  Wrong,  either  agreeable  or  disagree- 
able to  the  nature  of  things.  If  man  had  at  first,  the  highest  relish  of  those 
things  that  were  most  excellent  and  beautiful,  a  disposition  to  have  the  quickest 
and  highest  delight  in  those  things  that  were  worthy  of  it,  then  his  dispositions 
were  morally  right,  and  amiable,  and  never  can  be  decent  and  excellent  in  a 
higher  sense.  But  if  he  had  a  disposition  to  love  most  things  that  were  inferior 


30  LETTERS    TO    THE 

and  less  worthy,  then  his  dispositions  were  vicious."     Treatise  on  Original  Sin, 
page  157. 

You  will  observe  that  President  Edwards  says,  "  Human  Nature  must 
be  created  with  some  dispositions,"  and,  "if  it  (i.  e.  human  nature)  had  any 
concreated  dispositions  at  all,  they  must  be  right  or  wrong.  It  was  the 
opinion  of  Edwards  therefore  that  the  nature  with  which  Adam  was  created 
was  holy  ;  and  that  mankind  do  not  come  into  the  world  with  the  same  nature 
in  kind  as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created.  According  to  President 
Edwards,  Adam  was  created  with  "  dispositions  morally  fight  and  amiable  ;" 
but  his  posterity  come  into  the  world  with  dispositions  that  are  "  vicious."  — 
Can  you,  my  dear  sir,  subscribe  to  these  views  ?  Are  they  adopted  "  by  all 
of  us  —  by  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union,"  and  "  by  others  ?"  Please  to 
give  us  an  explicit  answer  to  these  inquiries. 

You  ask,  "  Do  not  these  brethren  of  yours  (brethren  of  the  New  Haven 
school)  hold  that  the  character  which  men  have  by  nature,  is  corrupt,  only 
corrupt,  entirely  alienated  from  God  ?"  That  this  is  the  character  of  men  so 
soon  as  they  have  a  moral  character,  I  am  aware  they  hold.  But  how  they  can 
consistently  maintain  that  this  is  their  "  native  character,"  that  they  are 
"  sinners  by  nature"  I  have  never  been  able  to  discover.  Was  Adam  by 
nature  a  sinner  1  Wats  the  child  Jesus  by  nature  a  sinner  1  But  mankind, 
we  are  told,  come  into  the  world  with  the  same  nature  in  kind,  —  "human 
souls  in  human  bodies,"  —  as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created,  and  with 
which  the  child  Jesus  was  born.  How  then  are  they  by  nature  sinners  ?  — 
What  has  their  nature  to  do  with  the  fact  of  their  becoming  sinners  ?  Be- 
sides, according  to  this  supposition  ;  what  connection  is  there  between  the 
sin  of  Adam  and  that  of  his  posterity  ?  Jf  Adam  had  never  sinned,  would 
not  his  posterity  have  come  into  the  world  with  the  same  nature  in  kind, — 
human  souls  in  human  bodies, —  as  that  with  which  they  are  now  supposed  to 
be  born.  What  influence  then,  has  the  apostacy  exerted  upon  the  human 
race  '!  How  is  it  true  that,  "  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made 
sinners  ;"  and  that  "by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  unto 
condemnation  ?" 

The  proposition  "  that  men  have  no  natural  sinful  propensities  "  you  observe, 
"  may  be  understood  as  a  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  physical  depravity."  But 
what  do  you  mean  by  the  doctrine  of  physical  depravity  ?  Is  it  the  doctrine, 
that  sin  is  a  part  of  the  substance  of  the  soul  ?  And  does  the  unpublished 
philosophy  of  your  school  teach,  that  propensities  constitute  a  part  of  the 
substance  of  the  soul  ?  If  I  understand  you,  you  admit,  (though  in  opposition 
to  Dr.  Taylor,  as  is  evident  from  the  above  extracts,)  that  men  have  natural 
propensities  to  sin,  which  are  innocent.  Do  you  consider  them  as  constituting 
a  part  of  the  substance  of  the  soul  ?  If  not,  why  should  it  be  thought  that 
sinful  propensities,  if  they  exist,  must  constitute  a  part  of  the  soul's  essence  ? 
Or  why  should  it  be  thought  that  natural  propensities  are  a  part  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  soul,  any  more  than  acquired  propensities  1  But  you  say,  "  The 
brethren  here  never  use  the  word  natural  in  this  connection."  You  also  say 
to  me,  "You  make  a  distinction  between  that  natural  depravity  which  you 
hold,  and  that  physical  depravity  which  you  reject."  No  sir,  you  are  mistaken. 
We  never  use  the  word  physical  in  this  connection.  It  is  too  "  vague  "  and 
"pliable"  a  word. 

You  ask,  "  When  you  assert  the  doctrine  of  natural,  or  native  depravity, 
do  you  not  mean  that  men  are  by  nature  sinners  :  —  that  in  their  nature  as  prop- 
agated from  Adam  there  are  propensities  to  evil,  never  failing  in  their  opera- 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  31 

tion  on  the  moral  character,  never  cured  or  effectually  resisted  but  by  the 
grace  of  God  V  Most  certainly  we  do.  And  we  believe  also  that  these 
propensities  are  not  innocent  but  sinful .  If  they  are  not  sinful,  what  grace 
would  there  be  in  curing  or  subduing  them  1  Grace  is  favor  to  the  guilty. 
What  grace,  then,  can  there  be  in  subduing  the  innocent  propensities  of  an 
innocent  being  I 

You  speak  of  an  innocent  propensity  to  sin.  Is  not  this  strange  language  ? 
Were  1  to  say,  that  a  certain  person  is  innocently  bent  on  mischief —  that  he 
has  an  innocent  propensity  to  lie,  to  steal,  to  commit  adultery,  and  to  murder, 
would  you  not  think  I  used  quite  extraordinary  language  ?  If  a  man  has  a 
propensity  to  steal,  do  you  not  call  it  a  thievish  propensity?  If  he  has  a 
propensity  to  malice,  do  you  not  call  it  a  malicious  propensity  ?  If  he  has  a 
propensity  to  avarice,  do  you  not  call  it  an  avaricious  propensity?  Why 
then  should  you  hesitate  to  call  a  propensity  to  sin,  a  sinful  propensity  ;  and 
to  regard  it  as  such  ? 

Allow  me  to  inquire  still  farther.  In  what  does  regeneration  consist,  if  not 
in  changing  man's  propensity  to  sin  ?  But  does  that  which  is  innocent  need 
to  be  changed  ?  What  sort  of  a  change  must  that  be,  which  only  removes  an 
innocent  propensity  ?  Is  it  amoral,  or  physical  change  ?  Is  it  such  a  change 
as  the  scriptures  denominate  the  new  birth  ?  Is  it  such  a  change  as  the  follow- 
ing language  describes  —  "  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit 
will  I  put  within  you  :  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh, 
and  I  will  give  you  an  heart  of  flesh."  —  Is  an  innocent  propensity  denomina- 
ted a  heart  of  stone?  You  will  not  think  it  strange  my  brother,  if  the  difference 
between  a  sinful  propensity  and  a  propensity  to  sin,  as  it  has  a  direct  bearing 
on  the  vital  doctrine  of  regeneration,  is  considered  by  some  of  your  brethren 
of  no  trifling  importance. 

But  permit  me  to  ask,  with  what  consistency  can  you  maintain,  on  your 
principles,  that  those  who  die  in  infancy  must  be  born  again,  and  must  be 
redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  in  order  to  be  saved  ?  If  infants  have  no 
moral  character,  if  they  have  no  sinful  propensities,  —  no  corrupt  nature, 
why  do<  they  need  to  be  renewed  ?  I  might  ask,  how  is  it  possible,  that 
they  should  be  regenerated  ?  Do  you  not  hold  that  regeneration  is  a 
moral  change?  And  can  a  creature,  who  is  not  a  moral  being,  aiid  who 
sustains  no  other  relation  to  the  moral  goverment  of  God  than  brute  animals, 
be  the  subject  of  a  moral  change  ?  What  is  the  change  wrought  in  the 
infant  mind  in  regeneration  ?  According  to  your  principles,  it  cannot  be  a 
change  of  character  ;  for  the  child  has  no  moral  character.  It  cannot  be  a 
change  from  sin  to  holiness;  for  if  the  child  is  not  a  moral  being  it  is  not 
sinful  and  cannot  be  made  holy.  How  then,  according  to  your  principles,  is 
it  possible  for  the  infant  to  be  born  again:  .'  And  for  what  do  those  who  die 
in  infancy  need  regeneration  ?  Do  they  need  to  be  born  again  to  prevent 
them  from  b^cominjj  sinners?  And  did  Adam  when  he  was  created,  need  to 
be  born  aijain  '.  Did  the  Angels  need  to  be  born  again?  Did  the  child 
Jesus  need  to  be  born  ajrain  ?  And  were  these  holy  beings  regenerated  after 
they  began  to  exist,  and  before  they  possessed  a  moral  character  I 

Again,  —  How  can  von  consistently  maintain,  that  those  who  die  in  infancy 
are  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ  !  From  what  are  they  redeemed  ? — Not 
from  sin  ;  for  they  have  none.  Not  from  the  curse  of  the  law  ;  for  they  have 
not  fallen  under  the  curse  of  the  law.  From  what  then  are  they  redeemed  ? 
Do  you  say,  as  a  writer  in  the  Christian  Spectator  has  said,  that  it  is  "  from 
the  future  existence  and  consequences  of  sin  1*     Is  this  redemption  ?    Are  all 


32  LETTERS    TO    THE 

those  redeemed,  who  are  prevented  from  becoming  sinners,  and  from  being 
exposed  to  the  curse  of  the  law  ?  Were  the  angels  redeemed  by  the  blood 
of  Christ  ?  Was  Jesus  himself  redeemed  by  his  own  blood  |  What  was  the 
object  of  Christ's  mission  ?  He  came  "to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost." 
"Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners."  "We  thus  judge,  that 
if  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead." 

Your  assertion  in  reference  to  the  following  propositions,  introduces  the 
second  question  for  discussion  :  — "  That  there  is  a  perio.l  subsequent  to  birth, 
during  which  men  have  no  moral  character,  and  are  not  subject  to  the  moral 
government  of  God  ;  and  that  animals  and  infants,  previous  to  this  supposed 
beginning  of  moral  agency,  stand  in  precisely  the  same  relation  to  this  subject." 
—  You  do  not  deny  that  these  propositions  are  held  by  the  New  Haven 
divines ;  but  you  tell  us,  that,  "  if  erroneous,  they  are  still  sanctioned  by 
names  which  the  Protesters  themselves  would  be  the  last  to  treat  with 
disrespect." 

The  Pastoral  Union,  I  trust,  are  not  disposed  to  treat  any  of  their  brethren 
with  disrespect,  though  they  feel  it  their  duty  to  bear  their  testimony  against 
what  they  consider  erroneous  sentiment,  by  whomsoever  it  may  be  maintained. 
You  refer  to  Drs.  Emmons,  Hopkins  and  Woods,  as  divines  in  New  England, 
who  have  sanctioned  the  above  propositions.  I  have  been  astonished  at  the 
use  which  you  have  made  of  these  names,  (and  I  doubt  not  many  others  have 
been  thus  affected.)  and  especially  at  the  use  which  you  have  made  of  the 
names  of  Hopkins  and  Woods.  —  Do  you  believe,  Sir,  and  will  you  affirm, 
that  these  men  have  sanctioned  the  above  propositions?  Do  you  not  know 
that  a  passage  cannot  be  quoted  from  their  writings,  in  which  they  have 
expressed  the  belief,  that  "  there  is  a  period  subsequent  to  birth,  during  which 
men  have  no  moral  character,  and  are  not  subject  to  the  moral  government 
of  God,  and  that  animals  and  infants,  previous  to  this  supposed  beginning  of 
moral  agency,  stand  in  precisely  the  same  relation  to  this  subject "? 

Have  Drs.  Emmons,  Hopkins  and  Woods  sanctioned  these  propositions  ? 
1.  Has  Dr.  Emmons  expressed  the  opinion,  that  "there  is  a  period 
subsequent  to  birth,  during  which  men  have  no  moral  Character,  and  are 
not  subject  to  the  moral  government  of  God  "  ?  I  have  not  at  command  the 
sermon  of  Dr.  Emmons,  to  which  you  refer,  and  must  hence  rely  on  the 
account  which  you  give  of  it.  You  say,  "  Dr.  Emmons,  in  his  sermon  on 
native  depravity,  asserts,  as  his  doctrine  of  native  depravity, '  that  mankind 
begin  to  sin  as  soon  as  they  become  capable  of  sinning.'  In  the  second  divis- 
ion of  the  sermon,  he  attempts  '  to  show  when  men  become  capable  of  sin- 
ning.' He  asserts'that  they  are  not  capable  of  sinning  before  they  become  moral 
agents.'  "  You  think  that  "  his  whole  argument  takes  it  for  granted  that  men 
become  moral  agents  after  they  begin  to  exist."  "  Accordingly  in  his  improve- 
ment of  the  subject,"  you  say,  "  he  avows  the  opinion,  '  that  if  children  die 
before  they  become  moral  agents  it  is  most  rational  to  conclude  that  they  are 
annihilated.'"  It  appears,  from  your  account  of  this  sermon,  that  in  it  the 
author  has  not  expressed  the  opinion,  that  men  become  moral  agents  at  a  period 
subsequent  to  birth.  You  think  his  "  whole  argument  takes  it  for  granted." 
But  in  this  are  you  not  mistaken?  The  following  is  an  extract  from  his  ser- 
mon oh  conscience  :  —  "  For  the  Bible  represents  infants  as  sinful,  guilty  crea- 
tures, as  soon  as  then  arc  born ;  which  plainly  implies,  that  they  are  moral 
agents.  In  a  word,  scripture,  reason,  observation  and  experience,  are  all  in 
favor  of  the  moral  agency  of  infants.  And  if  we  do  not  admit  that  moral 
agency  commences  in  infancy,  it  is  impossible  to  determine,  or  even  to  form  a 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  33 

probable  conjecture,  when  it  does  commence."  This  extract  is  the  conclusion 
of  an  argument  to  prove  "  that  infants  are  moral  agents  as  soon  as  they  are 
agents."  And  the  conclusion  is,  that  they  are  moral  agents  as  soon  as  they  are 
born.  In  your  representation  of  Dr.  Emmons'  opinion  on  this  subject,  have 
you  done  him  justice  ? 

2.  Has  Dr.  Hopkins  sanctioned  these  propositions  ?  What  is  his  language  ? 
—  He  says,  "  It  seems  proper,  if  not  necessary,  that  if  moral  corruption  be 
derived  from  Adam  to  his  children,  by  a  fixed  law  or  constitution,  it  should 
take  place  from  the  beginning  of  their  <  >',slcnce.  If,  by  being  his  child- 
ren, they  become  corrupt,  they  must  of  consequence  be  corrupt  as  soon  as 
they  exist,  or  become  his  children."  Agreeable  to  this,  the  scripture  represents 
all  mankind  as  sinful  from  (lie  beginning  of  (heir  existence.  The  same  idea 
is  repeatedly  expressed,  in  different  forms,  throughout  the  whole  discussion  of 
the  doctrine  of  native  depravity.  But  did  he  not  say,  that  men  begin  to  sin 
"  as  soon  as  they  begin  to  act  as  moral  agents  ?  He  did.  But  when,  did  he 
suppose,  they  begin  to  act  as  moral  agents  ?  At  the  "  beginning  of  their 
existence."  This  he  has  most  explicitly  and  uniformly  affirmed.  Has  Dr. 
Hopkins,  then,  sanctioned  the  opinion  that  "  there  is  a  period  subsequent  to 
birth,  during  which  men  have  no  moral  character,  and  are  not  subject  to  the 
moral  government  of  God  "  ? 

3.  Has  Dr.  Woods  sanctioned  these  propositions  ?  Please  to  read  again 
his  treatise  on  native  depravity.  Is  it  not  the  very  object  of  that  work  to 
prove  that  man  is  morally  depraved  from  his  birth  ?  i.  e.  that  he  has  a  sinful, 
and,  of  course,  a  moral  character  from  his  birth.  But  you  refer  to  his  con- 
troversy with  Dr.  Ware,  and  quote  the  following  passage  :  "  It  seems  to  me 
as  unreasonable  and  absurd  to  say,  that  human  beings  are  really  sinners  before 
they  are  moral  agents,  as  to  saf  that  birds  and  fishes  are  sinners."  But  does 
he  express  the  belief  that  there  are  any  human  beings  who  are  not 
moral  agents  ?  He  says,  in  one  place,  "  I  make  it  no  part  of  my  object,  in 
this  discussion,  to  determine  when  moral  agency  begins."  Yet  it  is  apparent, 
from  the  whole  discussion,  that  his  belief  was  that  men  are  moral  beings, 
or  moral  agents,  from  the  commencement  of  their  existence.  He  certainly 
has  no  where  expressed  a  contrary  belief.  When  he  says,  "  Dr.  Ware's 
position  is  mine,  that  men  are  sinners  so  soon  as  they  become  moral 
agents"  he  attempts  to  show  that  Dr.  Ware  virtually  admits  that  men  are 
moral  agents  from  their  birth,  Titus,  Dr.  Ware  had  said,  "  by  their  natural 
birth,  men  become  reasonable  and  accountable  beings."  "This,"  says  Dr. 
Woods,  -  is  as  much  as  to  say.  they  become  moral  agents?  Hence  he  infers 
that  Dr.  Ware  has  virtually  admitted  the  orthodox  doctrine,  viz.  that  "  all,  by 
their  natural  birth,  are  moral  agents,  and  as  soon  as  they  are  moral  agents, 
they  are  sinners."  "  To  this  representation  of  Dr.  Ware,"  says  Dr. 
Woods,  "  I  fully  accede."  In  the  very  paragraph,  therefore,  to  which  you 
have  referred,  Dr.  Woods  informs  us,  that  the  orthodox  doctrine  to  which  he 
accedes,  is  that  men  arc  moral  agents  and  sinners  from  their  birth.  And  has 
he  then  sanctioned  the  position,  that  "  there  is  a  period  subsequent  to  birth, 
during  which  men  have  no  moral  character,"  &c.  ?  No,  Sir,  I  do  not  hesitate 
to  say,  that  our  venerable  instructor  has  never  given  his  sanction  to  such  an 
opinion.  You  never  heard  the  expression  of  such  an  opinion  from  his  lips  in 
the  lecture  room,  nor  have  you  seen  it  in  his  published  works ;  and  to  repre- 
sent him  as  having  done  it,  is  doing  him  manifest  injustice. 

In  this  place,  you  will  allow  me  to  ask ;  if  the  views  of  Dr.  Woods,  on 
5 


34  LETTERS    TO    THE 

the  subject  of  native  depravity,  as  expressed  in  his  controversy  with  Dr. 
Ware,  accord  with  those  of  Dr.  Taylor,  as  3-011  seem  to  intimate,  why  did  Dr. 
Taylor  express  such  strong  dissatisfaction  with  this  part  of  the  discussion  ? 
Why  did  he  fay  to  one  brother,  that  on  this  subject  Dr.  Ware  had  the  better 
of  the  argument  :  and  to  another  that  Dr.  Woods  had  put  back  the  contro- 
versy with  Unitarians  fifty  years.  You  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  decided 
and  marked  disapprobation,  which  your  New  Haven  brethren  have  often  ex- 
pressed of  the  views  of  Dr.  Woods  on  this  subject,  as  exhibited  in  his  essay 
on  native  depravity,  and  in  his  controversy  with  Dr.  Ware.  Will  you  not, 
my  dear  Sir,  review  what  you  have  written  on  this  topic,  and  ask  yourself 
whether  it  is  right,  or  fair,  or  honorable,  to  bring  forward  the  names  of  dis- 
tinguished divines,  to  sanction  sentiments  which  we  all  know  they  do  not 
adopt,  but  repudiate  ? 

I  will  now  consider  your  remarks  on  the  next  article  in  the  Protest,  which 
is  thus  stated : 

"III.  Concerning  the  Principle  and  End  of  Human  Actions. — That  self-love,  or  the 
desire  of  happiness,  is  the  primary  cause  or  reason  of  all  acts  of  choice  which  fix  supremely  on 
any  object ;  and  that  of  all  specific  voluntary  action,  the  happiness  of  the  agent,  in  some  form,  is 
the  ultimate  end." 

In  regard  to  this  error,  you  say,  "  I  cannot  but  regret  that  the  framers  of 
the  Protest,  in  making  this  particular  statement,  did  not  declare  more  distinct- 
ly what  the  error  is  which  is  here  aimed  at."  —  I  do  not  know  how  it  could 
have  been  possible  for  them  to  have  declared  this  more  distinctly  than  they 
have  done.  They  say  it  is  an  error  "  concerning  the  principle  and  end  of 
human  actions  ;"  and  then  quote  the  language  in  which  it  is  expressed.  And 
is  not  this  language  definite  and  plain  ?  Does  it  not  clearly  state,  what  in 
the  view  of  the  writer  is  "  the  principle  and*end  of  human  actions  ?"  —  But 
you  say,  "Thousands,  doubtless  have  been  lead,  by  this  vague  statement  to 
regard  your  new  school  brethren  as  holding  the  preposterous  doctrine,  that 
every  man  may  and  must  make  his  own  happiness  his  only  and  ultimate  object 
in  all  that  he  does,  and  that  all  benevolence  and  self-denial,  all  justice,  truth, 
purity,  and  mercy,  are  merely  mercenary  and  differ  from  selfishness  only  in 
name."  But  how  do  you  suppose  thousands  have  been  lead  to  adopt  this 
conclusion,  unless  the  conclusion  is  warranted  by  the  obvious  meaning  of  the 
language  ?  The  Pastoral  Union  have  surely  made  no  such  representation, 
unless  it  is  made  by  the  language  which  they  have  quoted  verbatim,  and  with- 
out note  or  comment,  from  the  Christian  Spectator.  If  this  language  has 
produced  in  the  minds  of  thousands  the  conviction  of  which  you  speak,  do 
you  wonder  that  the  Pastoral  Union  should  regard  it  as  containing  a  funda- 
mental error,  and  that  they  should  publicly  and  solemnly  protest  against  it? 
And  is  it  not  high  time  for  you  and  your  associates  to  publish  a  like  protest  ? 

You  inquire  how  we  "  understand  the  words  primary  cause  or  reason,  in 
the  first  part  of  the  proposition,  and  the  words  ultimate  end,  in  the  last 
part."  —  I  answer,  we  understand  them  in  their  obvious  meaning.  And  were 
we  to  attach  to  them  that  which  was  not  their  obvious  meaning,  would  you 
not  censure  us  ?  Turn  to  the  Christian  Spectator,  and  look  at  the  connection 
in  which  the  "first  part  of  the  proposition,"  or  rather  the  first  proposition  is 
used. 

"  The  self-love  or  desire  of  happiness,  is  the  primary  cause  of  reason  of  all 
acts  of  preference  or  choice  which  fix  supremely  on  any  object.  In  every 
moral  being  who  forms  a  moral  character,  there  must  be  a  first  moral  act  of 
preference  or  choice.  This  must  respect  some  one  object,  God  or  Mammon,  as 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  35 

the  chief  good,  or  as  an  object  of  supreme  affection.  Now  whence  comes 
such  a  choice  or  preference  I  Not  from  a  previous  choice  or  preference  of 
the  same  object,  for  we  speak  of  the  first  choice  of  the  object.  The  answer 
which  human  consciousness  \  the  being,  constituted  with  a  capacity 

for  happiness,  desires  to  be  able  of  deriv- 

ing happiness  from  differ  from  which -the  greatest  happi- 

ness may  be  derived  ;  and  as,  in  this  i  uztes  their  rela- 

tive    Value,     SO     HE     CHOOSES    Oii    PREFERS   THE    ONE    OR   THE   OTHER    AS    HIS 

chief  good."  —  Christian  Spectator  1829,  page  21. 

Is  there  any  obscurity  in  tins  language  I  Is  it  possible  to  misunderstand  it  ? 
If  the  meaning  of  the  words,  primary  cause  or  reason"  is  not  made  evident 
by  the  context,  pray  tell  me  how  it  can  be  made  evident.  —  And  so  of  the 
other  proposition ;  "Of  all  specific  voluntary  action,  the  happiness  of  the 
agent,  in  some  form,  is  the  ultimate  end."  —  Is  there  any  thing  vague,  or 
ambiguous,  or  obscure  in  this  language  ?  Should  I  not  insult  my  readers  to 
intimate,  that  they  could  not  understand  a  proposition  so  simple  as  this  ?  It 
is  my  full  belief,  that  you  and  I  understand  it,  and  that  the  writer  understands 
it,  exactly  as  it  is  understood  by  the  Pastoral  Union. 

I  agree  with  you,  that  "  a  voluntary  agent  must  be  influenced  by  motives  ; 
and  that  every  objective  motive,  in  order  to  be  a  motive,  must  appeal  to  some 
sensibility  or  desire  of  the  mind  that  is  to  be  moved  by  it,  while  the  subjective 
motive  is  nothing  else  than  the  awakened  desire  moving  the  mind  to  choose." 
But  I  do  not  believe,  that  all  moral  beings,  whether  sinful  or  holy,  are  influen- 
ced by  the  same  subjective  motives  ;  that  is,  have  the  same  ultimate  end  in 
view  in  their  moral  conduct.  My  belief  is,  that  the  grand  distinction  between 
the  saint  and  the  sinner,  lies  in  the  subjective  motives  by  which  they  are  actu- 
ated —  that  while  the  sinner  makes  his  own  happiness  his  ultimate  end  ;  the 
saint  makes  the  glory  of  God  his  ultimate  end.  It  is  my  solemn  conviction  — 
a  conviction,  which  in  connection  with  what  I  have  witnessed  in  years  past, 
has  occasioned  me  much  distress  —  that  those  who  are  influenced  by  no  higher 
motive  than  self-love,  whatever  may  be  their  outward  or  visible  character, 
are  strangers  to  the  religion  of  the  gospel.  What  was  it  which  filicd 
the  mind  of  the  pious  Brainerd  with  such  deep  distress  at  a  period  when  he 
viewed  himself  near  the  close  of  life  ! 

He  says,  "  These  things  I  saw  with  great  clearness  when  I  was  thought  to 
be  dying,  and  God  gave  me  great  concern  for  his  church,  and  interest  in  the 
world  at  this  time.  Not  so  much,  because  the  late  remarkable  influence 
upon  the  minds  of  the  people  was  abated  and  almost  wholly  gone,  as 
because  the  false  religion,  the  heats  of  imagination,  and  wild  selfish  com- 
motions of  the  animal  affections,  which  attended  the  work  of  grace,  had 
prevailed  so  far.  This  was  that  which  my  mind  dwelt  upon  day  and  night, 
and  was  to  me  the  darkest  appearance  respecting  religion  in  the  land. 
For  ft  was  that  winch  prejudiced  the  world  against  inward  religion.  This 
I  saw  was  the  greatest  misery  of  all,  that  so  few  saw  any  measure  of 
difference  between  those  exercises  which  are  spiritual  and  holy,  and  those 
which  have  self-love  fob  theib  beginning,  center,  and  end."  —  Brainerd's 
Life,  page  498. 

You  say,  "  Ask  any  obedient  and  holy  mind,  on  earth  or  in  heaven,  Why 
do  you  obey  God,  why  do  you  devote  yourself  to  his  praise  and  service,  why 
employ  your  faculties  and  powers  in  this  course  of  benevolent  action?  — 
Must  not  the  answer  be,  Because  I  love  it,  —  because  I  delight  in  it,  because 
it  is  my  blessedness,  my  highest  good."  —  You  seem,  my  brother,  to  overlook 


36  I/ETTERS    TO    THE 

a  very  important  distinction,  which  is  thus  happily  expressed  by  President 
Edwards. 

u  The  first  objective  ground  of  gracious  affections,  is  the  transcendently 
excellent  and  amiable  nature  of  divine  things  as  they  are  in  themselves  ;  and 
not  any  conceived  relation  they  bear  to  self,  or  self-interest."  "  Some  sav 
that  all  love  arises  from  self-love ;  and  that  it  is  impossible  in  the  nature  of 
things,  for  any  man  to  have  any  love  to  God  or  any  other  being,  but  that  love 
to  himself  must  be  the  foundation  of  it.  But  I  humbly  suppose,  it  is  for  the 
want  of  consideration  they  say  so.  They  argue,  that  whoever  loves  God, 
and  so  desires  his  glory,  or  the  enjoyment  of  him,  he  desires  these  things  as 
his  own  happiness ;  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  beholding  and  enjoying  his 
perfections,  are  considered  as  things  agreeable  to  him,  tending  to  make  him 
happy.  And  so  they  say,  it  is  through  self-love  or  a  desire  of  his  own  happiness 
that  he  desires  God  should  be  glorified,  and  desires  to  behold  and  enjoy  his 
glorious  perfections.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that  after  God's  glory  and  behold- 
ing his  perfections  are  become  so  very  agreeable  to  him,  he  will  desire  them 
as  his  own  happiness,  But  how  came  these  things  to  be  so  agreeable  to  him, 
that  he  esteems  it  his  highest  happiness  to  glorify  God,  &c.  Is  not  this  the 
fruit  of  love  ?  Must  not  a  man  first  love  God,  and  have  his  heart  united  to 
him  before  he  will  esteem  God's  good  his  own,  and  before  he  will  desire  the 
glorifying  God  as  his  happiness  ?  It  is  not  strong  arguing,  that  because  after 
a  man  has  his  heart  united  to  God  in  love,  and  as  a  fruit  of  this,  he  desires 
his  glory  and  enjoyment,  as  his  own  happiness,  that  therefore  a  desire  of  his 
own  happiness  must  needs  be  the  cause  and  foundation  of  his  love ;  unless 
it  be  strong  arguing  that  because  a  father  begat  a  son,  therefore  his  son 
certainly  begat  him."  —  Edwards'  Works,  Volume,  iv.  page  172. 
I  am,  Sir,  with  great  respect,  yours,  truly, 

GEORGE  A.  CALHOUN. 

Coventry,  December  27,  1839. 


SLttttt  ©X. 

Dear  Sir,  —  The  fourth  error  set  forth  in  the  Protest  relates  to  a  change 
of  heart.  The  language  in  which  it  is  stated,  is  taken  from  an  elaborate 
treatise  on  the  means  of  regeneration,  published  in  the  Christian  Spectator 
for  the  year  1829;  in  which  the  theory  is  maintained  that  antecedent  to 
regeneration,  the  selfish  principle  is  suspended  in  the  sinner's  heart,  that  he 
then  ceases  to  sin,  and,  prompted  by  self-love,  begins  to  use  the  means  of 
regeneration  with  motives  which  are  neither  sinful  nor  holy.  The  passage 
quoted  in  the  Protest,  describes  the  process,  through  which  the  writer  sup- 
poses the  sinner  to  go,  after  the  suspension  of  the  selfish  principle,  and  while 
using  the  means  of  regeneration.  Let  it  be  read  in  connection  with  the  con- 
text, and  with  other  passages  in  the  same  treatise.  The  passage  quoted  by 
the  Pastoral  Union  is  included  in  brackets  in  the  following  extract. 

"We  have  already  said,  that  the  sinner  is  the  subject  of  that  constitutional 
desire  of  happiness,  called  seif-love,  to  which  no  morai  quality  pertains.  Let 
the  sinner  then,  as  a  being  who  loves  happiness  and  desires  the  highest  degree 
of  it,  under  the  influence  of  such  a  desire,  take  into  solemn  consideration  the 
question  whether  the  highest  happiness  is  to  be  found  in  God  or  in  the  world  ; 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  37 

let  him  pursue  the  inquiry,  if  need  be,  till  it  result  in  the  conviction  that  such 
happiness  is  to  be  found  in  God  only  ; —  [and  let  him  follow  up  this  conviction 
with  that  intent  and  engrossing  contemplation  of  the  realities,  which  truth 
discloses,  and  with  that  stirring  up  of  his  sensibilities  in  view  of  them,  which 
shall  invest  the  world,  when  considered  as  his  only  portion,  with  an  aspect  of 
insignificance,  of  gloom  and  even  of  terror,  and  which  shall  chill  and  suspend 
his  present  active  love  of  it ;  and  let  the  contemplation  be  persevered  in, 
till  it  shall  discover  a  reality  and  an  excellence  in  the  objects  of  holy  affection 
which  shall  put  him  upon  direct  and  desperate  efforts  to  fix  his  heart  upon 
them ;  and  let  this  process  of  thought,  of  effort,  and  of  action  be  entered 
upon  as  one  which  is  never  to  be  abandoned,  until  the  end  proposed  by  it  is 
accomplished,  —  until  the  only  living  and  true  God  is  loved  and  chosen,  as  his 
God  forever ;  and  we  say,  that  in  this  way  the  work  of  his  regeneration, 
through  grace,  may  be  accomplished."]  "Whence  then  the  necessity  to  the 
sinners  regeneration,  of  those  acts  which  are  dictated  by  the  selfish  principle? 
Is  it  that  the  acts  now  described  are  impossible  ?"  —  "  Is  not  this  indeed  sub- 
stantially the  actual  process  in  every  instance  of  regeneration  ?  Without 
affirming,  what  we  shall  have  occasion  to  prove  hereafter,  that  the  transition 
from  sin  to  holiness,  without  this  mental  process,  is  physically  impossible,  we 
say,  that  all  the  preliminary  mental  acts  and  states  which  are  necessary  to 
regeneration  may  be  as  rationally  accounted  for,  by  tracing  them  to  self- 
love,  as  by  tracing  them  to  selfish  principle." — Christian  Spectator,1829,  p.32. 

Such  is  the  process  through  which  this  writer  supposes  every  sinner  to  pass 
who  is  born  again.  First,  the  selfish  principle  is  suspended,  and  self-love 
takes  its  place  ;  all  opposition  to  God  and  aversion  to  holiness,  for  the  time 
being,  ceases.  The  sinner  becomes  favorably  inclined,  has  sincere  desires 
after  holiness,  and  is  disposed  to  exert  himself  to  the  utmost  to  do  his  duty. 
He  sees  a  reality  and  excellence  in  the  objects  of  holy  affection,  which  puts 
him  upon  direct  and  desperate  efforts  to  fix  his  heart  upon  them.  And  all 
this,  let  it  be  remembered,  while  he  is  still  totally  depraved  and  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sin.  Some  of  the  absurdities  involved  in  this  scheme  are  thus 
graphically  described  by  a  distinguished  theologian. 

"  This  is  on  the  whole  just  such  a  journey  as  I  should  expect  a  supremely 
selfish  man  and  totally  depraved  sinner  would  make  in  his  own  strength  from 
sin  to  holiness.  T  reading  selfishness  under  his  feet  with  a  heart  caring  for 
nothing  but  himself  ;  panting  with  '  truly  sincere  desires  —  for  acceptance 
with  God,'  while  blind  to  his  '  excellence '  and  caring  for  nothing  but  to  shield 
himself  from  punishment ;  —  completely  detached  from  the  world,  and  just 
prepared  to  give  his  heart  to  God  as  soon  as  he  can  obtain  clear,  just  and 
vivid  views  of  his  glories,  the  precise  things  that  were  never  seen  but  by  holy 
eyes  ;  but  upon  using  the  means  of  regeneration  when  the  act  cannot  possibly 
preceed  regeneration  itself.  If  this  is  the  road  travelled  by  the  self-determin- 
ing power,  surely  '  the  way  of  transgressors  is  hard.'  "  —  Griffin  on  Divine 
Efficiency,  page  52. 

You  well  know,  Sir,  that  the  treatise  on  the  means  of  regeneration  from 
which  the  above  is  an  extract  is  taken,  was  read  by  many  in  the  Christian 
community  with  great  distress.  It  was  extensively  regarded,  as  containing 
principles  "  at  war  with  God's  word,"  and  inconsistent  with  all  genuine 
Christian  experience.  My  limits  will  not  allow  me  to  point  out  all  the  partic- 
ulars in  it  which  are  considered  quite  exceptionable ;  you  will  therefore 
permit  me  to  refer  you  and  the  reader  to  Dr.  Tyler's  Strictures  and  Vindi- 


38  LETTERS    TO    THE 

cation.  —  When  the  Strictures  were  published,  Professor  Stuart  thus  wrote 
to  Dr.  Ebenezer  Porter,  who  was  at  that  time  in  Charleston,  S.  C.  —  "  Dr. 
Tyler  has  published  his  pamphlet,  a  noble  one  too  —  which  has  made  an  end 
of  the  matter,  as  to  brother  Taylor's  regeneration  by  self  love,  —  a  full  end  : 
there  is  no  redemption.  All  the  fog  is  blown  away,  and  we  have  at  last,  a 
clear  and  sheer  regeneration  of  the  natural  man  by  himself,  stimulated  by 
self-love,  made  out  to  be  the  scheme  of  brother  Taylor  ;  there  is  no  getting 
aside  of  it.  Brother  Taylor  must  sing  his  TrxXoia^  or  go  farther  and  plunge 
deeper.  I  hope  for  the  5r«A<v»JV  but  I  fear  the  <^«t^/3jj."  Dr.  Porter's  Me- 
moirs, page  222. 

Now  can  you  be  surprised,  that  views  of  the  great  and  cardinal  doctrine  of 
regeneration,  which  Professor  Stuart  felt  himself  authorized  to  speak  of  in 
this  manner,  should  excite  great  fear  and  distress  in  the  Christian  Community, 
especially  considering  the  source  from  which  they  emanated  ?  My  brother, 
the  conviction  is  deep  and  solemn,  that  great  errors  have  been  and  still  are 
maintained  and  propagated  among  us.  You  may  make  light  of  this  convic- 
tion,—  you  may  regard  it  as  the  result  of  weakness  and  ignorance.  —  you 
may  treat  it  with  ridicule  and  sarcasm, — you  may  call  it  "  prayerful  calumny," 
—  you  may  look  down  with  disdain  upon  those  who  indulge  in  it;  but"  if 
you  expect  in  this  way  to  remove  it,  let  me  assure  you,  you  have  greatly 
mistaken  the  character  of  the  brethren  with  whom  you  have  undertaken  to 
deal. 

The  next  article  in  the  Protest  is  thus  described. 

"V.  Concerning  the  Agency  of  the  Spirit  in  Regeneration." — "That  the  Spirit,  in  Re. 
generation,  does  not  by  direct  efficiency  change  the  heart,  and  thus  produce  holy  affections  — 
that  there  is  no  other  effectual  hold  which  this  divine  agent  can  have  on  the  sinner  whom  he 
would  turn  from  the  error  of  his  ways,  but  that  which  consists  in  so  bringing  the  truths  of  the 
Bible  into  contact  with  his  understanding  and  moral  sensibilities,  that  he  shall  voluntarily  shun 
the  threatened  evil  and  choose  the  proffered  good,  and  that  there  is  no  more  difficulty  in  account, 
ing  for  the  fact  that  the  yielding  sinner  supremely  loves  God  from  tin:  impulse  of  a  regard  to 
his  own  happiness,  than  there  is  in  explaining  the  opposite  fact,  of  his  having  formerly,  under 
the  influence  of  the  same  principle,  when  perverted,  loved  his  idols." 

In  commenting  upon  the  first  proposition  in  this  statement,  you  seem  to 
manifest  an  unusual  degree  of  excitement,  and  to  speak  with  a  good  deal  of 
warmth.  If  I  do  not  misunderstand  you,  you  pretty  clearly  intimate  your 
belief,  that  the  Professor  of  Theology  at  East  Windsor  has  been  guilty  of  a 
deliberate  falsehood  in  this  matter.  I  extremely  regret  this  intimation,  and 
that  you  have  imposed  on  me  the  duty  of  repelling  it  as  calumnious.  In  the 
closing  paragraph  of  your  last  letter,  you  say  ;  "  If  I  have  spoken  harshly,  if  I 
have  judged  unkindly,  reprove  me,  and  pardon  me  as  a  brother."  In  this  case 
I  think  you  have  "  spoken  harshly  "  and  "judged  unkindly  ;"  but  be  assured  I 
"  pardon  you  as  a  brother."  But  why  is  it  you  are  led  to  believe,  that  the 
Professor  of  Theology  at  East  Windsor  is  guilty  of  this  gross  delinquency  ? 
Because  he  is  a  member  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  and  because  the  Pastoral  Un- 
ion have  protested  against  the  doctrine  that  "  the  Spirit  in  regeneration  does 
not  by  direct  efficiency  chang-e  the  heart  and  thus  produce  holy  affections  ;" 
and  because  Dr.  Taylor  in  his  controversy  with  Dr.  Tyler  said,  "  we  have 
never  called  in  question,  the  doctrine  of  an  immediate  or  direct  agency  of  the 
Spirit  on  the  soul,  in  regeneration."  But  my  dear  sir,  how  does  this  prove 
that  Dr.  Tyler  has  been  guilty  of  falsehood  ?  Have  you  not  gone  much  too 
fast  in  coming  to  this  painful  conclusion?  Do  you  know  that  Dr.  Tyler  did 
not  object  to  that  article  of  the  Protest  ?  If  he  objected  to  the  insertion  of 
this  proposition  in  the  Protest,  where  is  the  delinquency   with  which  you 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  39 

charge  him?  Is  it  not  an  unwarrantable  assumption  that  _Dr.  Tyler  is  re- 
sponsible for  all  the  acts  of  the  Pastoral  Union?  Without  first  learning  how 
a  member  of  Congress  has  acted  in  a  given  case,  would  you  make  him  respon- 
sible for  the  action  of  th"  Legislature  in  that  case,  and  en  the  assumption  of 
such  a  responsibility  charge  him  with  the  guilt  of  falsehood?  Would  not  this 
be  speaking  '  harshly"  and  judging  "unkindly  ?" 

But  what  has  the  Pastoral  Union  done  ?  Have  they  charged  Dr.  Taylor 
with  holding  the  doctrine  which  he  has  disclaimed  ?  You  remark,  "  1  need 
not  say,  that  this  Protest  is  understood  to  describe,  or  that  it  was  designed  to 
describe  the  opinions  of  the  Theological  Professors  at  New-Haven,  and  partic- 
ularly the  opinions  of  Dr.  Taylor."  But  pray  tell  me,  how  is  this  understood? 
The  Pastoral  Union  have  given  no  such  intimation.  They  have  protested 
against  errors  which  they  supposed  to  prevail.  But  they  have  not  said  or 
even  intimated,  that  all  the  errors  against  which  they  have  protested  are 
taught  at  New-Haven.  What  if  Dr.  Taylor  has  not  denied  the  direct  effic- 
ieuci/  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration  :  —  has  no  one  denied  it  ?  Are  there 
not  those  who  maintain  that  the  Holy  Spirit  never  operates  upon  the  mind, 
except  through  the  medium  of  truth  or  motives?  Dr.  Porter,  in  his  Letters 
on  Revivals,  speaks  of  this  as  a  prevalent  error,  and  one  which  is  maintained 
by  "  religious  teachers  of  considerable  name."  Why  do  you  not  charge  him 
with  a  gross  delinquency  ? 

But  are  you  quite  sure  that  this  sentiment  is  adopted  by  none  of  the  minis- 
ters of  Connecticut?  It  will  give  joy  to  the  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union 
to  be  well  assured  of  this  fact.  They  doubtless  did  suppose  that  this  error  did 
exist  in  the  State  ;  but  they  have  not  charged  Dr.  Taylor  with  maintaining  it ; 
nor  do  I  find  that  Dr.  Tyler  has  brought  against  him  any  such  charge,  since 
the  disclaimer  to  which  you  refer.  In  his  vindication,  after  quoting  the  dis- 
claimer of  Dr.  Taylor,  he  says,  "  I  am  happy  to  be  informed  that  his  views  on 
this  point  have  been  misapprehended."  What  ground  is  there  then,  for  the 
insinuation  that  there  is  between  Dr.  Tyler  and  Dr.  Taylor,  in  reference  to 
this  subject,  -a  plain  falsehood,  for  which  one  of  them  must  give  account  to  the 
God  of  truth."  "In  the  name  of  charity,  and  as  sincerely  desirous  to  put  the 
best  construction  upon  this  matter,"  I  entreat  you  not  to  bring  before  the  pub- 
lic another  such  insinuation. 

It  is  true,  as  it  appears  from  his  Strictures,  that  Dr.  Tyler  did  understand 
Dr.  Taylor  to  maintain,  in  his  treatise  on  the  means  of  regeneration,  that  the 
Divine  Spirit  operates  not  directly  on  the  mind,  but  only  through  the  medium 
of  truth  or  motives.  This  principle  he  supposed  to  be  invc  lved  in  the  whole 
tenor  of  his  reasoning  respecting  the  suspension  of  the  selfish  principle,  and 
to  be  distinctly  avowed,  when  he  said;  "  II*  there  were  no  other  way  to 
overcome  this  strong  man,  [the  selfish  principle,]  but  by  direct  assault,  then 
for  aught  we  can  see,  the  moral  transformation  of  the  soul  were  hopeless, 
even  to  Omnipotence."  By  direct  assault,  Dr.  Tyler  doubtless  understood 
Dr.  Taylor  to  mean  the  direct  efficiency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  (and  what  else  he 
could  mean  I  do  not  know  that  he  or  any  other  person  has  ever  informed  us.) 
But  when  Dr.  Taylor  disclaimed  any  such  meaning.  Dr.  Tyler  said  :  "lam 
happy  to  be  informed  that  his  views  on  tlii-;  point  have  been  misapprehended." 

But  although  neither  the  Pastoral  Union  nor  Dr.  Tyler  have  imputed  to 
Dr.  Taylor  the  sentiment  that  the  Spirit  operates  on  the  mind  in  regeneration 
only  through  the  medium  of  truth  or  motives  ;  if  I  have  been  correctly 
informed  there  are  those  who  have  represented  him  as  holding  this  sentiment ; 
and  those  too  who  profess  to  be  well  acquainted  with  his  opinions,  and  who 


40  LETTERS    TO    THE 

have  been  claimed  as  belonging  to  your  party.  If  therefore  there  have  been 
any  false  representations  on  this  subject,  you  can  judge  from  what  quarter 
they  have  come. 

But  after  all,  do  the  New  Haven  divines  maintain  the  doctrine  of  direct 
divine  efficiency,  in  the  sense  in  which  that  doctrine  has  been  maintained  by 
our  standard  orthodox  divines  ?  A  direct  and  full  answer  to  this  question 
will  much  oblige  me,  and  doubtless  many  of  my  readers.  —  What  is  that  doc- 
trine, as  held  by  our  standard  writers  ?  If  I  have  correctly  understood  it,  it 
is  this,  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  a  direct,  efficacious,  invincible  energy,  creates 
in  the  sinner  a  new  heart,  and  a  new  spirit ;  —  i.  e.  a  new  disposition,  or  new 
moral  affections,  communicating  a  relish  for  spiritual  and  holy  objects,  and 
causing  the  soul  to  delight  in  what  before  it  viewed  with  aversion  and  hatred. 

Thus  President  Edwards  says  ;  "  The  nature  of  virtue  being  a  positive 
thing,  can  proceed  from  nothing  but  God's  immediate  influence,  and  must  take 
its  rise  from  creation  or  infusion  by  God." 

Dr.  Bellamy  says  ;  "  In  regeneration,  there  is  a  new,  divine  and  holy  taste 
and  relish  begotten  in  the  heart  by  the  immediate  influence  of  the  Spirit  of 
God." 

Dr.  Hopkins  says  ;  "  The  divine  operation  in  regeneration  of  which  the 
new  heart  is  the  eifect,  is  immediate,  or  it  is  not  wrought  by  the  energy  of 
any  means  as  the  cause  of  it,  but  by  the  immediate,  power  and  energy  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  called  a  creation,  and  the  divine  energy  in  it  is  as  much 
without  any  medium  as  in  creating  something  from  nothing." 

Dr.  Smalley  says ;  "  Regeneration  is  such  a  spiritual  change  of  nature,  as 
supposes  something  created  in  a  proper  and  strict  sense." 

Dr.  D  wight  says  ;  "  The  soul  of  man  was  created  with  a  relish  for  spiritual 
objects.  The  soul  of  every  man  who  becomes  a  Christian  is  renewed  by  the 
communication  of  the  same  relish." 

Tell  me,  my  brother,  do  the  New  Haven  divines  hold  this  doctrine  ?  I  had 
verily  supposed  that  they  considered  such  an  influence  upon  the  mind  as  is 
described  in  the  foregoing  extracts,  to  be  inconsistent  with  moral  agency,  and 
that  they  were  in  the  habit  of  representing  those  who  entertained  these  views 
as  virtually  holding  the  doctrine  of  physical  regeneration.  If  I  have  been 
deceived  on  this  point,  you  will  be  so  good  as  to  correct  me. 

There  is  another  difficulty  which  you  will  allow  me  to  state.  If  the  New 
Haven  divines  admit  the  doctrine  of  a  direct  divine  efficiency  in  genera- 
tion, how  comes  it  to  pass  that  they  have  called  in  question  the  doctrine  of 
God's  absolute  control  over  the  moral  universe,  and  his  ability  to  prevent  ali  sin 
in  a  moral  system  ?  If  he  can  and  does,  by  a  direct  efficiency,  renew  the  hearts 
of  obdurate  rebels,  and  transform  them  into  meek  and  humble  disciples  of 
Jesus,  without  impairing  their  moral  agency ;  can  he  not,  by  a  direct  influence 
upon  the  minds  of  holy  beings,  preserve  them  from  apostacy.  If  God  can 
create  holiness  in  totally  depraved  hearts,  can  he  not  uphold  and  preserve  it 
in  those  hearts  in  which  it  already  exists  ?  It  appears  to  me,  that  the  theory 
of  the  New  Haven  divines  respecting  the  divine  permission  of  sin,  rests  on 
the  assumption,  that  God  never  does  exert  such  a  direct  efficiency  on  the 
minds  of  men  in  regeneration,  as  Calvinists  have  uniformly  maintained. 
Please  to  relieve  my  mind  from  this  difficulty. 

But  let  us  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  next  proposition  in  the  article 
of  the  Protest:  —  "that  there  is  no  other  hold  which  this  Divine  Agent  can 
have  on  the  sinner  whom  he  would  turn  from  the  error  of  his  ways,  but  that 
which  consists  in  so  bringing  the  truths  of  the  Bible  in  contact  with  his  under- 


REV.    LEONARD    BACOX.  41 

standing  and  moral  sensibilities,  that  he  shall  voluntarily  shun  the  threatened 
evil  and  choose  the  proffered  good."  This  is  quoted  from  the  Christian 
Spectator,  for  1833,  page  356.  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  language?  Will 
you  not,  Sir,  look  at  it  a  little  more  particularly  than  you  seem  to  have  done? 
According  to  this  representation,  what  does  the  Holy  Spirit  do  in  regeneration  ? 
He  brings  the  trutlis  of  the  Bible  into  contact  with  the  understanding  and  moral 
sensibilities  of  the  sinner,  in  such  a  manner  that  he  is  induced  (or  persuaded) 
voluntarily  to  shun  the  threatened  evil  and  choose  the  protfered  good.  This, 
we  are  given  to  understand,  is  all  which  the  Holy  Spirit  can  do  in  renewing 
the  heart.  "  We  know  of  no  other  effectual  hold  which  this  Divine  Agent  can 
have  on  the  sinner,  whom  he  would  turn  from  the  error  of  his  ways."  Pray 
inform  me,  is  this  the  doctrine  of  direct  divine  efficiency,  as  it  has  been  main- 
tained by  Calvinists  ?  Can  you  solemnly  affirm  that  it  is  ?  How  is  it  that 
a  person,  believing  in  that  doctrine,  should  write  in  this  manner  ? 

The  remaining  proposition  in  the  Protest  under  this  head  is  as  follows :  — 
"  There  is  no  more  difficulty  in  accounting  for  the  fact  that  the  yielding  sinner 
supremely  loves  God,  from  the  impulse  of  a  regard  to  his  own  happiness, 
than  there  is  in  explaining  the  opposite  fact,  of  his  having  formerly,  under 
the  influence  of  the  same  principle,  when  perverted,  loved  his  idols."  This 
is  from  the  Christian  Spectator,  for  1833,  page  357.  That  it  may  be  fully 
understood,  it  is  important  to  notice  what  immediately  follows.  "  The  self- 
love  that  was  previously  in  servitude  to  his  selfish  inclinations,  and  perverted 
by  their  unhallowed  influence,  now  breaks  away  from  that  servitude,  as  his  soul 
under  the  power  of  light  and  motives  rendered  effectual  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
is  made  to  see  and  feel  where  its  true  interest  lies.  And  no  sooner  is  this  duly 
seen  and  felt,  through  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  than  the  man  who  is  so  con- 
stituted that  he  must  have  a  regard  to  what  he  views  as  his  highest  good,  at 
once  chooses  Christ  and  his  service  as  the  means  of  securing  it."  —  Are  we 
not  here  clearly  taught,  that  regeneration  implies  no  change  in  the  internal  or 
subjective  motive  bv  which  man  is  influenced,  —  that  the  yielding  sinner  "  acts 
under  the  influence  of  the  same  principle"  as  that  by  which  he  was  '•  influen- 
ced when  he  supremely  loved  his  idols  ?"  in  other  words,  that  he  has  the  same 
ultimate  end,  viz.  a  supreme  regard  to  his  own  happiness.  And  what,  accord- 
ing to  this  representation  does  the  Holy  Spirit  do  in  regeneration  ?  He  brings 
M  light  and  motives"  before  the  mind  of  the  sinner,  so  that  he  sees  and  feels 
where  his  true  interest  lies.  This  we  are  given  to  understand  is  all  which  it  is 
necessarv  for  the  Spirit  to  do  :  for  "  no  sooner  is  this  duly  seen  and  felt,  than 
the  man  who  is  so  constituted  that  he  must  have  a  regard  to  what  he  views 
as  his  highest  good,  at  ovice  chooses  Christ  and  his  service  as  the  means  of 
securing  it."  I  ask  vou,  Sir.  is  this  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  a  direct  divine 
efficiency  in  regeneration?  What  do  the  New  Haven  divines  mean  when 
they  speak  of  a  direct  efficiency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration  ?  I  ask  for 
li<rht  on  this  subject,  and  your  remarks  on  this  article  in  the  Protest  do  not 
emit  the  light  demanded.  They  are  not  at  all  satisfactory.  Indeed  what 
liwht  do  they  give  on  this  subject  ?  You  have  pretty  plainly  intimated  that  a 
father  of  high  standing  in  the  ministry,  who  is  also  a  theological  professor, 
has  been  grossly  delinquent ;  you  have  asked  me  to  name  the  men  among  the 
Congregational  ministers  of  Connecticut  who  teach  or  hold  this  proposition 
of  the  Protest ;  and  you  have  inquired  whether  the  apostle  James  is  a  heritic. 
And  what  else  ?  —  My  dear  Sir,  you  must  be  aware,  that  not  a  few,  regard 
the  above  description  of  regeneration  aa  utterly  inconsistent  with  all  genuine 


42  LETTERS    TO    THE 

religious  experience,  and  as  eminently  suited  to  lead  sinners  to  deceive  them- 
selves with  a  hope  of  salvation  which  will  not  abide  in  the  day  of  trial. 

I  have  only  to  add  in  reference  to  this  topic ;  the  Pastoral  Union  have  not 
charged  the  New  Haven  divines  with  denying  the  doctrine  of  a  direct  divine 
efficiency  in  regeneration.  Nor  do  I  charge  them  with  denying  it.  How 
they  can  maintain  it  consistently,  you  will  perceive  by  the  preceding  remarks, 
is  what  I  am  wholly  unable  to  see.     I  proceed  to  the  next  article. 

"VI.  Conckkning  Special  Grace."  —  "That  if  it  is  a  known  and  revealed  truth  that  the  sinner 
under  a  present  call  to  duty,  will  not  act,  unless  God  do  mjrc  than  he  is  now  doing,  then  it  is 
reasonable  that  the  sinner  wait  until  God  does  more  ;  and  that  in  all  cases,  the  grace  of  God  may 
be  effectually  resisted." 

I  was  not  a  little  surprised  by  the  following  declaration.     "  You  know  how 
widely  it  has  been  reported,  and  by  whom  it  has  been   reported,  that  the  Pro- 
fessor of  Didactic  Theology  in  Yale  College,  in  personal  conversation  with  his 
friends,  denies  the  doctrine  of  special  grace  in  the  conversion  of  sinners,  and 
is  keeping  back  a  public  denial  of  the  doctrine  only  till  the  public  mind  shall  be 
prepared  for  it."     No  Sir.     You  mistake.     I  do  not  possess  the  information  on 
this  subject  which  you  say  I  possess.  I  know  no  man,  by  whom  such  a  report 
has  been  circulated.     I  do  know  who  has  been  charged  with  circulating  such 
a  report.     The  charge  was  brought  four  years  ago,  against  Dr.  Nettieton.    It 
was  then  promptly  denied,  and  his  accusers  were  called  upon  to  exhibit  the 
Droof.    But  no  proof  has  yet  been  adduced.    That  the  charge  should  again  be 
preferred,  without  a  particle  of  proof,  is  to  me  a  matter  of  astonishment.     I 
now  call  upon  you,  either  to  retract  the  charge,  or  to  substantiate  it  by  proof. 
I  am  authorized  by  Dr.  Nettieton  to  say,  that  he  is  not  conscious  of  having 
ever  charged  Dr.  Taylor  With  denying  special  grace,  in  any  other  sense  than 
that  in  which  Dr.  Taylor  has  charged  Dr.   Tyler  with  being  a  universalist, 
an  infidel,  and  an  atheist.    He  has  expressed  his  belief,  as  many  other  persons 
have  done,  that  Dr.  Taylor  has  in  his  published  writings,  maintained  positions 
which  lead  by  legitimate  consequence  to  the  denial  of  special  grace.     And  Dr. 
Taylor  has  charged  Dr.  Tyler  with  maintaining  positions  which  lead  by  legiti- 
mate consequence  to  universalism,  to  infidelity,  and  to  atheism.     Now  suppose 
that  I  should  affirm  thatDr.  Taylor  has  caiied  Dr  Tyler  a  universalist,  an  infi- 
del, and  an  atheist;  wou'd  you  not  repel  such  an  assertion  as  false  and  slanderous  ? 
The  language  referred  to  by  the  Pastoral   Union,  which  is  supposed  to 
involve,  by  legitmate    consequence,  the  denial  of  special  grace,  is  taken  from 
Dr.  Taylor's  treatise  on  the  means  of  regeneration.     This  language  you  think 
"is  perfectly  equivocal —no  Delphic    Oracle  could   surpass  it."     (No  great 
compliment  to  the  writer.)     But,  Sir,  I  see  nothing  equivocal  or  obscure  in 
passage.     It  appears  to  me,  a  Delphic  Oracle  would  far  surpass  it.     I  believe 
it  will  admit   of  but  one  interpretation,  without   doing  violence  to  the  lan- 
guage.    Just  look  at  it  again.     "Common  sense  decides,  that,  if  it  is  a  known 
and  revealed  truth  that  the  sinner,  under  a  present  call  to  duty,  will  not  act," 
(i.  e.  will  not  do  his  duty.)  "  unless  God  do  more  for  him  than  he  is  now  doing, 
then  let  the  sinner  wait"  (i.  c.  he  has  a  good  reason  for  waiting)  "till  he  does 
more."     This  certainly,  as  it  appears  to  me,  is  very  plain  language.     I  know 
not  how  to  express  my  views  of  this  passage  better  than  to  copy  the  follow- 
ing remarks  from  Dr.  Tyler's  Vindication. 

"  According  to  this  statement,  the  sinner  is  authorized  to  believe,  not  only  that  he  can,  but  also 
that  there  is  no  certainty  that  he  shall  not  perform  his  duty  ;  even  if  God  should  do  no  more  for 
him  than  he  is  now  doing  ;  or  else  he  is  authorized  to  believe,  that  be  has  a  good  and  sufficient 
reason  for  persisting  in  disobedience.     Now  every  sinner  under  genuine  conviction  of  sin,  fully 


UEV.    LEONARD    BACON.  43 

believes,  that  he  neve.-  shall  do  his  duty  unless  God  does  more  for  him  than  he  is  now  doing ;  aud 
every  sinner  who  <1ol.s  not  believe  this,  bet  -ays  consummate  ignorance  of  hi*  own  heart." 

"  Besides — if  sinners  are  authorized  to  Believe,  that  there  is  no  certainly  that  they  shall  not 
repent,  even  if  God  does  no  more  for  them  than  he  is  now  doing  ;  then  Christians  may  believe  that 
wiien  they  repented,  God  did  no  more  for  them  than  he  had  previously  don.',  and  no  more  than  he 
did  tor  others,  who  never  have  repented.  Who  make Ui  thee  to  differ  ?  Again  —  If  sinners  are 
authorized  to  believe  as  ;;b  >ve,  then  Christians  may  believe  that  sinners  will  repent  and  turn  to 
God,  although  God  should  do  no  more  for  them  than  he  is  now  6<>m^.  Suppose  they  should 
express  this  sentiment  in  prayer  :  '  Lord,  we  do  believe  that  sinners  will  repent  and  he  converted, 
even  if  thou  shouldst  withhold  \'..y  special  grace,  and  do  no  more  for  them  than  thou  art  now 
doing.'  But  says  the  Reviewer,  'The  grace  that  may  ait.  nd  any  present  call  to  duty,  may  be 
given  in  greater  measure  than  any  which  preceded  it.'  Be  it  so.  f>till  the  grace  which  is  neces- 
sary to  secure  repentance,  has  not  yet  been  given  to  the  sinner,  who  is  now  impenitent ;  and  if  it 
is  a  revealed  truth,  that  the  sinner  will  not  repent  without  that  grace,  then,  according  to  the 
Reviewer's  statement,  he  has  a  good  and  sufficient  reason  to  wait  t:il  that  grace  be  given."  This 
reasoning,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  never  been  answered.  There  is  as  it  appears  to  me,  but  one 
alternative  ;  the  position  must  be  given  up,  or  the  doctrine  of  special  grace  must  be  abandoned. 

"  Thai  in  all  cases,  the  grace  of  God  may  be  effectually  resisted."  —  On 
this  point  you  ask,  "  Do  tiie  Pastoral  Union  believe  in  the  irresistible  grace 
which  Dr.  Dwight  so  distinctly  and  earnestly  denies  ?  Do  they  protest 
against  Dwight's  Theology  as  boldly  assailing  those  scriptural  doctrines  which 
constitute  the  long  acknowledged  basis  of  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  church- 
es ?  Do  they  insist  that  his  error  on  this  point  is  subversive  of  the  fundamen- 
tal doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and  suited  to  deceive  many  with  false  hopes  of 
salvation  ?"  Not  quite  so  fast,  brother  Bacon.  You  exceed  the  speed  of 
modern  improvements.  Stop,  and  point  me  to  the  passage  in  which  Dr. 
Dwight  has  thus  affirmed  that  '•  in  all  cases  the  grace  of  God  may  be  effectu- 
ally resisted."  If  he  has  thus  affirmed,  I  am  certainly  ignorant  of  the  fact.  He 
did  indeed  object  to  the  phrase  •'  irresistible  grace."  as  many  others  have  done, 
who  fully  admit  the  doctrine  which  was  thus  denominated  by  the  old  divines. 
President  Edwards  says,  "  The  dispute  about  grace  being  resistible  or  irresiti- 
ble,  is  perfect  nonsense.  For  the  effect  of  grace  is  on  the  will :  so  that  it  is 
nonsense,  except  it  be  proper  to  say,  that  man  with  his  will  can  resist  his  own 
will  ;  that  is,  except  it  be  possible  for  a  man  to  will  a  thing  and  not  will  it  at 
the  same  time." 

The  doctrine  of  Calvinists  on  this  subject  is,  that  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  regeneration  is  effectual,  efficacious,  invincible,  decisive,  unfailing,  in 
producing  the  desired  effect :  in  other  words,  that  sinners  never  so  resist  the 
grace  of  God  as  to  render  it  impossible  for  God  to  convert  them.  Has  Dr. 
Dwight  denied  this  doctrine  t  Certainly  not,  for  he  has  said  in  the  very  par- 
agraph to  which  you    have    referred,    "  That  the  Spirit  of  God  can  do 

ANV    THING    WITH    MAN',    AND    CONSTITUTE  MAN  ANY  THING   WHICH  HE  PLEASES, 

cannot  be  questioned."  If  this  declaration  of  Dr.  Dwight  is  true,  the 
Holy  Spirit  can  transform  any  sinner  that  he  pleases  into  a  saint,  and  it  is  not 
true  that  the  grace  of  God  may  be  in  all  cases  effectually  resisted.  Do  the 
Pastoral  Union,  then.  -  protest  against  Dr.  Dwight's  Theology,  as  boldly 
assailing  those  scriptural  doctrines  which  constitute  the  long  acknowledged 
basis  of  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  churches  ?  Do  they  insist  that  his  error 
on  this  point  is  subversive  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and 
suited  to  deceive  many  with  false  hopes  of  salvation  ?"  Had  there  been  no 
departure  from  Dr.  Dwight's  Theology,  would  yno,  my  brother,  have  been  so 
much  troubled  with  a  Protest  of  the  Pastoral  Un:on  ?  Dr.  Dwight  does 
not  sanction  the  doctrine  against  which  the  Pastoral  Union  have  protested. 

That  unrenewed  men  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  unquestionably 
true.  But  the  point  at  issue  is,  may  they  in  all  casts  effectually  resist  the 
Spirit,  and  thus   prevent  their  conversion  ?     If  every  sinner  may  effectually 


44  LETTERS    TO    THE 

resist,  and  thus  frustrate  the  grace  of  God  which  attempts  to  convert  him  ; 
then,  it  may  be  that  not  another  sinner  will  ever  be  converted.  You  know 
who  it  is  that  has  said,  "  Free  moral  agents  can  do  wrong  under  all  possible 
preventing  influence  ;  using  their  powers  as  they  may  use  them,  they  will 
sin ;  and  no  one  can  show  that  some  such  agents  will  not  use  their  powers  as 
they  may  use  them.  This  possibility  that  free  agents  will  sin,  remains, 
(suppose  what  else  you  will,)  so  long  as  moral  agency  remains ;  and  how  can 
it  be  proved  that  a  thing  will  not  be,  when  for  ought  that  appears,  it  may  be!" 
How  can  it  be  proved,  then,  that  every  sinner  will  not  effectually  resist  the 
grace  of  God  and  perish  ?  Has  Dr.  Dwight  maintained  any  such  doctrine  ? 
Allow  me  to  quote  again  his  declaration,  that  it  may  be  easily  compared  with 
the  above.  —  "  That  the  Spirit  of  God  can  do  any  thing  with  man,  and  consti- 
tute man  any  thing  he  pleases,  cannot  be  questioned."  On  this  important  point 
in  theology,  do  the  New  Haven  divines  agree  with  Dr.  Dwight  ?  Meet  this 
question  fairly,  without  quibbling  or  evasion.  Do  not  say  that  the  words 
"  may  be  denote  no  uncertainty  ;  for  you  know  that  the  passage  is  found  in 
a  train  of  reasoning  in  which  the  writer  is  attempting  to  prove  that  if  God 
created  a  universe  of  moral  agents,  there  could  be  no  certainty  that  all  would 
persevere  in  holiness  —  that  no  preventing  influence  which  God  could  use, 
would  make  it  certain  that  some  of  them  would  not  rebel.  You  will  not 
deny,  that  this  was  the  object  of  the  writer ;  and  if  his  argument  proves  any 
thing  to  his  purpose,  it  proves  equally  that  sinners  may  effectually  resist  the 
grace  of  God  and  render  it  impossible  for  God  to  convert  them. 

After  adding  another  letter  in  reply  to  your  remarks  on  the  Protest,  I  shall 
proceed  to  notice  the  contents  of  some  of  your  communications  which  have 
thus  long  been  passed  in  silence.  Be  patient,  my  brother ;  you  know  it 
requires  less  time  to  ask,  than  to  answer  questions. 

Respectfully  and  affectionately  yours  in  the  gospel. 

GEORGE  A.  CALHOUN. 

Coventry,  January  4,  1840. 


littler  Wll. 

Dear  Sir, —  I  proceed  now  to  notice  your  remarks  on  the  last  errors  set 
forth  in  the  Protest  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  which  is  thus  stated. 

"  VII.  Concerning  Election. — That  election  is  God's  purpose  that  those  should  repent  aud 
believe  whom  he  foresaw,  under  the  most  wise  distribution  of  the  means  and  agencies  by 
which  he  could  operate  upon  the  subjects  of  his  moral  kingdom,  he  could  induce  to  obey  th» 
gospel." 

u  On  the  doctrine  of  election,"  you  say,  "  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  at  the 
most  as  little  occasion  for  dispute  or  difference  between  the  Pastoral  Union 
and  their  brethren,  as  on  any  other  of  the  points  named  in  this  Protest."  This 
may  be,  and  yet  there  may  be  occasion  for  no  inconsiderable  difference.  If  I 
understand  you,  you  S3e  in  this  article  of  the  Protest  nothing  objectionable  ;  and 
you  seem  to  be  filled  with  wonder  that  the  Pastoral  Union  should  take  excep- 
tions to  it.  You  make  a  number  of  statements  on  this  subject,  in  which  you 
think  all  must  agree.  But,  sir,  I  have  learned  that  two  persons  may  agree  in 
admitting  a  certain  general  proposition,  when  they  differ  widely  as  to  the  sense 
in  which  the  proposition  is  to  be  understood.     I  will  illustrate  my  meaning. 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  45 

Not  long  since,  as  I  was  informed  by  one  who  was  present,  a  candidate  for  a 
license  to  preach  the  gospel  was  examined  by  one  of  our  associations.  During 
the  examination  he  was  asked  what  he  understood  by  election.  He  replied, 
"  It  is  God's  purpose  to  convert,  and  save  only  a  part  of  the  human  race." 
To  this  statement  no  one  of  the  association  was  disposed  to  object.  And  who 
would  object  to  this  statement  ?  Do  you  think  any  minister  of  the  Pastoral 
Union  would  object?  Would  Edwards, Bellamy,  Hopkins,  Smalley,  D wight, 
or  Strong  have  objected  ?  But  being  asked  again,  why  God  did  not  purpose 
to  convert  and  save  all  men,  his  reply  was,  "  we  have  no  evidence  that  he  was 
able  to  do  it." — "  I  believe,"  said  he,  "  that  God  will  save  as  many  as  he  can." 
Do  you  not  believe,  sir,  that  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union  will  object  to  this 
view  of  the  doctrine  of  election  ?  Do  you  not  believe  that  Edwards,  Smalley, 
Hopkins,  Bellamy,  D wight,  and  Strong  would  have  objected  to  this  ?  Now 
it  is  to  this  view  of  the  doctrine  of  election,  that  we  do  object. 

Do  you  say  that  the  sentiment  here  advanced  is  not  adopted  by  any  of  our 
ministers  ?  But,  if  I  am  correctly  informed,  a  part  of  the  association  referred 
to,  expressed  no  dissatisfaction  with  the  answer  of  the  candidate.  Again,  if  I 
am  correctly  informed,  the  following  is  an  article  of  faith  adopted,  within  a 
few  years  past,  by  one  of  the  Congregational  churches  of  New-Haven ; — 
"  That  the  present  system  of  God's  moral  government  is  the  best  that  he  could 
adopt  to  promote  his  own  glory,  and  the  highest  good  of  his  intelligent  crea- 
tures ;  and  that  he  has  from  eternity  chosen  to  salvation  every  sinner  that  he 
can  sanctify  and  save  under  this  system."  Is  not  the  view  of  the  doctrine  of 
election  expressed  by  the  candidate  alluded  to,  and  in  this  article  of  faith,  sub- 
stantially that  which  has  been  maintained  in  publications  which  have  been 
circulated  among  us  ?  Has  not  the  doctrine  been  maintained  and  strenuously 
defended,  that  God  would  make  all  his  moral  creatures  holy  and  happy,  if  it 
were  possible  to  him  in  the  nature  of  things  ?  Look  at  the  following  state- 
ments :  "  Would  not  a  moral  universe  of  perfect  holiness  be  happier  and  better 
than  one  comprising  sin  and  its  miseries  ?  And  must  not  infinite  benevolence 
accomplish  all  the  good  it  can  ?  Would  not  a  benevolent  God,  then,  had  it 
been  possible  to  ki?n  in  the  nature  of  things,  have  secured  the  existence  of  uni- 
versal holiness  in  his  moral  kingdom  ?"  Again  —  "  Dr.  Tyler  maintains  that 
God  can  secure  the  holiness  and  happiness  of  all  his  moral  creatures.  It  fol- 
lows, therefore,  that  God  will  secure  the  holiness  and  happiness  of  all  his 
moral  creatures.  Of  course  all  men  will  be  saved."  Again — "How  is  it  that 
God  says,  Isaiah  v.  4,  that  he  has  done  all  that  can  be  done  to  bring  sinners 
to  repentance,  when  he  could  do  mjre  if  he  would."  Now  suppose  the 
question  to  be  asked,  why  did  not  God  purpose  to  convert  and  save  the  whole 
human  race  ?  What  must  the  answer  be,  to  accord  with  the  foregoing  state- 
ments ?  Again  —  look  at  the  following  proposition  which  has  been  often 
repeated  and  vindicated  :  "  God  prefers,  all  things  considered,  holiness  to 
sin,  in  all  instances  in  which  the  latter  takes  place."  —  If  this  declaration  is 
true,  why  does  not  God  prevent  sin,  by  securing  holiness  in  its  stead  in  all 
instances  ?  Just  answer  that  question,  without  evasion,  or  equivocation. 
You  know  that  there  can  be  but  one  answer ;  and  that  is,  that  he  is  not  able 
to  do  it :  for  certainly  God.  must  be  disposed  to  secure  that  which  he  on  the 
whole  prefers.  This  you  can  not,  you  will  not  deny.  What,  then,  becomes 
of  the  doctrine  of  election  ?  Why  has  God  purposed  to  sanctify  and  save 
only  a  part  of  the  human  race  ?  It  is  of  no  use  to  attempt  to  put  an  orthodox 
gloss  upon  the  subject,  and  thus  endeavor  to  satisfy  a  portion  of  your  readers, 
by  saying,  "  Whomsoever  God  elects  to  be  renewed  and  saved,  them  he  elect* 


48  LETTERS    TO    THE 

because  he  foresees  that  it  will  be  wise  and  consistent  with  his  universal 
scheme  for  him  to  put  forth  those  acts  which  shall  secure  the  renovation  and 
salvation  of  those  individuals. — Whomsoever  he  passes  over  in  his  purpose 
of  election,  them  he  passes  over  because  he  foresees  that  it  will  not  be  wise, 
not  consistent  with  his  great  scheme,  for  him  to  put  forth  those  acts  which 
shall  secure  their  renovation  and  salvation."  —  According  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  New  Haven  school,  why  would  it  not  have  been  wise  for  God  to  purpose 
to  make  all  his  moral  creatures  holy  and  happy  ?  Simply  because,  he  foresaw 
tiiat  he  could  not  do  it.  This  is  taught  in  language  too  plain  to  to  be  mis- 
understood. 

You,  Sir,  doubtless  expect  me  to  say  something  in  reference  to  your  remarks 
on  "  Dr.  Dana's  Letters  to  the  Rev.  Professor  Stuart."  You  say,  — "  In  Dr. 
Dana's  »  Letters  to  Professor  Stuart '  —  a  pamphlet  of  which  I  may  say  that 
I  cannot  read  it  but  with  thankfulness  that  no  Connecticut  Doctor  is  capable 
of  producing  such  a  series  of  weak  misrepresentations  —  I  find  this  version 
of  the  supposed  error  of  '  the  new  theory  '  respecting  election,  namely  that  it 
'  subverts  the  doctrine  of  election,  by  resolving  it  into  a  mere  certainty  in  the 
mind  of  God  whether  the  sinner  will  voluntarily  turn,  or  voluntarily  persist  in 
impenitence.'  Can  it  be  —  I  asked  myself —  can  it  be  that  this  is  what  the 
Pastoral  Union  mean  to  charge  their  brethren  with  believing  ?  No  —  I 
replied — they  certainly  know  better.  Dr.  Dana  lives  a  great  way  off; 
and  to  him,  looking  through  a  glass  darkly,  all  things  may  seem  distorted  and 
misplaced,  and  even  the  sun  light  may  be  gloomy  ;  —  but  these  brethren,  who 
live  among  us,  and  with  whom  we  have  often  taken  sweet  counsel,  —  they 
cannot  so  misunderstand,  on  such  a  subject,  the  opinions  of  their  neighbors." 

In  the  first  place,  allow  me  to  say,  that  I  was  not  a  little  surprised  at  the 
contemptuous  manner  in  which  you  speak  of  a  pamphlet  which  has  been  so 
favorably  received  by  the  Christian  public,  and  so  highly  commended  by  the 
periodical  press,  both  in  New  England  and  elsewhere.  I  refer  to  the  notice 
taken  of  it  in  the  Christian  Mirror  ;  the  Boston  Recorder  ;  the  Congregation- 
alist ;  the  Biblical  Repository ;  the  Presbyterian ;  and  the  Watchman  of  the 
South.  In  all  these  journals  it  is  highly  commended.  It  is  also  favorably 
noticed  in  the  Philadelphia  Observer,  and  particularly  commended  for  the 
excellent  spirit  which  pervades  its  pages.  You,  my  brother,  I  believe  have 
the  honor  of  being  the  first  man,  who  has  publicly  spoken  of  it  with  contempt. 

In  the  second  place,  permit  me  to  say,  that  while  Dr.  Dana  has  long  been  a 
learned,  able,  humble,  faithful,  and  successful  minister  of  Christ ;  he  has  Jong 
been  in  the  habit  of  writing  for  the  Christian  public,  very  much  to  the  edifica- 
tion of  the  churches ;  and  though  he  has  aided  the  sight  of  his  eyes  by  the 
use  of  glasses  ;  yet  I  am  by  no  means  certain,  that  his  '■  vision  of  the  supposed 
error  of  the  new  theory  respecting  election  "  is  so  far  from  the  truth,  as  you 
would  have  us  to  believe.  According  to  him  the  new  theory  "  subverts  the 
doctrine  of  election  by  resolving  it  into  a  mere  certainty  in  the  mind  of  God, 
whether  the  sinner  will  voluntarily  turn,  or  voluntarily  persist  in  impenitence." 
This  you  affect  to  regard  as  a  gross  misrepresentation.  But,  my  dear  Sir,  just 
compare  it  with  the  following  extract  from  the  Christian  Spectator  for  1831, 
page  637.  "  The  means  of  reclaiming  grace  which  meet  him  in  the  word 
and  spirit  of  God,  are  those  by  which  the  Father  draws,  induces  just  such 
sinners  as  himself  voluntarily  to  submit  to  Christ ;  and  these  means  all  favor 
the  act  of  his  submission.  To  this  influence  he  can  yield,  and  thus  be  drawn 
of  the  Father.  This  influence  he  can  resist  and  thus  harden  his  heart  against 
God.     Election  involves  nothing  more  as  it  respects  his  individual  case,  except 


LETTERS    TO    THE  47 

one  fact,  the  certainty  to  thp  divine  mind,  whether  the  sinner  will  yield 
to  the  means  of  grace,  and  voluntarily  turn  to  God,  or  whether  he  will  con- 
tinue to  harden  his  heart  till  the  means  of  grace  are  withdrawn."  —  Read  over 
this  statement  —  ponder  upon  it  —  and  ask  yourself  what  must  he  its  import, 
if  fairly  interpreted.  God  employs  the  best  system  of  means  which  his 
wisdom  can  devise  to  bring  sinners  to  repentance.  lie  annex,  indiices  them 
to  submit  to  Christ.  Every  sinner  can  yield  to  this  influence,  or  he  can  resist 
it.  "  Election  invoices  nothing  more,  as  it  respects  his  individual  case,  except 
one  fact,  the  certainty  to  the  divine  mind,"  —  that  is,  the  divine  fore- 
knowledge, whether  the  sinner  will  yield  to  the  means  of,  grace,  and  volun- 
tarily turn  to  God,  or  whether  he  will  continue  to  harden  his  heart. 

Now  I  ask  you.  Sir,  is  not  this  the  very  view  of  election  which  Dr.  Dana 
has  described  ?  I  ask  also,  whether  it  is  possible  to  put  a  different  construc- 
tion upon  the  language  quoted  above,  without  doing  violence  to  all  legitmate 
rules  of  interpretation  ?  And,  I  ask  again,  are  you  quite  certain,  "that  no 
Connecticut  Doctor  is  capable  of  producing  such  a  series  of  weak  misrepre- 
sentations" as  are  found  in  Dr.  Dana's  pamphlet  1 

But  farther  :  If  all  men  may  effectually  resist  the  grace  of  God,  then  cer- 
tainly before  God  can  purpose  to  renew  and  save  any  individuals,  he  must 
foresee  that  those  individuals  will  cease  to  resist  his  grace,  and  thus  render  it 
possible  for  God  to  convert  them.  According  to  this  scheme  therefore,  elec- 
tion must  be  founded,  not  only  on  God's  foreknowledge  "  of  what  it  will  be 
wise  and  best  for  him  to  do  ;"  but  on  his  foresight  of  what  men  will  do.  I  see 
not  therefore,  but  it  must  be  resolved,  as  Dr.  Dana  has  said,  "  into  a  mere 
certainty  in  the  mind  of  God,  whether  the  sinner  will  voluntarily  turn  or 
voluntarily  persist  in  impenitence." 

Although  "  Dr.  Dana  lives  a  great  way  off,"  and  although  he  has  become  a 
venerable  father  in  the  ministry,  I  am  not.  sure  that  he  has  looked  at  this  sub- 
ject "  through  a  glass  darkly."  He  has  doubtless  read  the  Christian  Spectator 
attentively,  and  I  am  not  yet  fully  convinced,  that  he  is  not  as  capable  of  un- 
derstanding what  he  reads,  as  the  brother,  who,  (though  greatly  his  junior  in 
years,)  is  disposed  to  treat  him  with  so  great  disrespect. 

As  you  have  seen  fit  to  express  so  freely  your  views  of  Dr.  Dana's  Letters 
to  Professor  Stuart,  may  I  not,  in  the  third  place,  express  the  opinion,  that  the 
learned  Professor,  consulting  his  ease  and  reputation,  may  be  led  to  maintain 
a  dignified  silence,  in  relation  to  that  pamphlet. 

With  this  review  of  your  remarks  on  the  Protest  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  I 
submit  to  you  and  the  reader,  one  of  the  great  questions  to  be  settled,  before 
harmony  can  be  restored  to  the  ministers  of  this  State,  viz  ;  —  Previous  to 
the  organization  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  were  there  not  sentiments 
inculcated  and  promulgated,  which  were  believed  to  be  subversive 
of  the  established  faith  of  our  churches  ? 

In  your  last  letter  you  say  "  Let  me  add  a  few  words  of  explanation,  and  I 
have  done  with  this  Protest  for  the  present.  First  I  am  far  from  denying 
that  there  are  differences  between  East  Windsor  and  New  Haven,  or  that 
these  differences  are  important  in  respect  to  the  illustration  and  defence  of  the 
doctrines  revealed  in  the  gospel.  I  will  not  now  attempt  to  tell  what  the 
real  differences  are,  and  how  they  bear  upon  revealed  truth. —  Perhaps  at  some 
future  stage  in  this  discussion,  I  may  attempt  such  a  statement."  In  coming 
"  to  the  root  and  essence  of  our  existing  difficulties,"  it  is  to  be  deeply  regretted 
that  you  did  not,  in  the  first  place, "  tell  what  the  real  differences  are,  and  hdw 
they  bear  upon  revealed  truth." — Would  not  this  have  been  the  most  success- 


48  REV.    LEONARD    BACON. 

fill  method,  which  could  have  been  adopted, "  to  remove  misunderstanding  and 
to  unite  the  ministers  of  Connecticut  more  strongly  than  ever  in  those  ties 
which  seem  in  some  clanger  of  disruption  ?"  But  have  not  the  communica- 
tions with  which  you  have  honored  me  been  well  adapted,  I  do  not  say  design- 
ed, to  cast  a  dark  cloud  over  the  eyes  of  your  readers,  and  hide  from  their 
view  the  real  differences  "between  East  Windsor  and  New  Haven,  and  how 
they  bear  upon  revealed  truth  ?"  But  you  intimate  that  there  are  to  be  future 
stages  in  this  discussion,  and  that  " at  some  future  stage " you  "  may  attempt 
such  a  statement."  I  beg  you  to  do  it.  Do  it  fully,  do  it  faithfully,  do  it  in 
the  fear  of  God.  And  do  it  at  as  early  a  stage  in  this  discussion  as  possible. 
— Let  minor  subjects  of  dispute  be  passed  in  silence,  until  you  have  brought 
distinctly  to  view  what,  in  your  opinion,  are  the  real  theological  differences 
between  our  brethren  of  the  New  Haven  School  and  the  members  of  the 
Pastoral  Union.  Tell  us  how  important  you  conceive  these  differences  to  be, 
"  in  respect  to  the  illustration  and  defence  of  the  doctrines  revealed  in  the 
gospel,"  and  "  how  they  bear  upon  revealed  truth."  And  in  doing  this,  it  seems 
needful,  and  if  I  mistake  not,  there  are  obvious  reasons,  why  you  should  answer 
the  questions  publicly  propounded  to  Dr.  Taylor  by  Dr.  Woods  in  1830,  and 
which  Dr.  Taylor  was  earnestly  requested  to  answer.  1.  These  questions 
respect  the  "  root  and  essence  of  our  existing  difficulties."  2.  They  have  not, 
to  this  day,  so  far  as  I  know,  been  answered.  3.  You  have  volunteered  your 
services,  and  taken  the  lead  in  this  discussion,  for  the  professed  purpose  of 
removing  "  misunderstanding,  and  to  unite  the  ministers  of  Connecticut  more 
strongly  than  ever."  There  is  misunderstanding  on  theological  points,  between 
the  ministers  of  Connecticut,  which  will  not,  in  my  opinion,  be  fully  removed 
until  these  questions  are  satisfactorily  answered.  4.  In  commencing  this 
discussion,  you  have  put  yourself  in  the  place  of  Dr.  Taylor,  and  may  we  not 
expect  you  to  act  his  part  in  this  particular.  5.  In  the  autumn  of  1829,  the 
day  after  the  anniversary  of  the  Andover  Seminary,  Drs.  Beecher,  Taylor, 
Goodrich,  Nettleton,  Church,  Cornelius,  Hewitt,  Spring,  Porter,  Woods,  Pro- 
fessor Stuart,  and  some  other  gentleman,  met  in  Dr.  Porter's  study,  for  a 
conference  on  the  subjects  of  controversy,  on  which  they  and  others  entertain- 
ed different  opinions.  In  the  autumn  of  1830,  not  long  after  Dr.  Woods' 
Letters  to  Dr.  Taylor  were  published,  in  which  are  the  questions  alluded  to, 
there  was  at  the  same  place  a  similar  meeting.  The  following  gentlemen,  and 
some  others,  were  present :  Drs.  Day,  Beecher,  Porter,  Hewit,  Nettleton, 
Church,  Pond,  Stowe,  the  four  Professors  of  Andover  Seminary,  Rev.  Leonard 
Bacon,  Rev.  E.  Beecher,  Rev.  Parsons  Cooke,  Rev.  George  Howe,  and  Rev. 
Amos  Blanchard.  Dr.  Beecher  stated,  "  that,  the  object  of  the  meeting  was, 
to  deliberate  on  some  practicable  mode  of  discussing  the  subjects  of  contro- 
versy, on  which  evangelical  ministers  are  supposed  to  entertain  different 
opinions."  And  now,  my  brother,  is  the  printed  document  spread  out  before 
me  correct  in  asserting,  that  "  after  various  remarks  made  by  different  gentle- 
men, on  the  evils  of  controversy,  a  new  turn  was  given  to  the  whole  subject, 
and  the  following  resolution  was  offered  by  Mr.  Bacon,  and  seconded  by  Dr. 
Beecher  : — "  Resolved,  as  the  sense  of  this  meeting,  without  wishing  to  control 
the  judgment  of  individuals  concerned,  that  it  is  desirable  that  all  farther 
controversy,  by  means  of  pamphlets  books  and  periodicals,  respecting  the 
topics  which  have  recently  divided  the  opinions  of  the  evangelical  ministers  of 
New  England,  cease,  from  this  time,  on  both  sides."  It  is  further  asserted, 
irf  the  document  before  me,  that  you  advocated  the  adoption  of  this  resolution, 
and  that  it  was  passed,  the  gentlemen  not  assenting  to  it,  having  previously 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  49 

retired  from  the  meeting1.  Whether  you  offered  that  resolution  as  an  apology 
tor  Dr.  Taylor's  not  answering  Dr.  Woods'  questions,  or,  as  I  am  quite  disposed 
to  believe,  merely  to  prevent  the  evils  of  controversy  ;  since  Dr.  Taylor  has 
not  answered  those  questions,  and  since  you  have  now  entered  the  field  of 
public  discussion,  and  have  commenced  debates  by  asking  questions,  because 
you  think  "  it  is  high  time  that  they  were  asked  earnestly,  and  answered 
unequivocally  ;"  yon  will  not,  you  can  not  object  to  answering  yourself  the 
questions  which  Dr.  Woods  propounded  to  Dr.  Taylor.  What  I  wish  you  to 
do  I  will  express  in  a  quotation  from  Dr.  Woods'  Letters  to  Dr.  Taylor,  pp. 
103-4-5-0. 

"As  to  the  subjects  of  discussion  introduced  in  these  Letters,  I  hope  you  will  take  care  not  to 
overlook  the  main  points.  Whatever  labor  you  may  bestow  upon  smaller  things,  be  careful  not 
to  pass  by  those  which  arc  of  primary  importance. — You  will  excuse  me  if  I  mention  some  of 
them,  and  suggest  to  you  what  I  suppose  to  be  necessary  on  your  part,  to  meet  the  circumstances 
of  the  case,  and  the  wishes  of  the  community. 

"  As  to  the  two  positions,  then,  which  you  call  '  common  but  groundless  assumptions,'  I  wish 
to  ask,  what  you  take  to  be  the  real  sentiments  which  your  brethren  mean  to  express  by  these 
positions  :  and  whether  you  deny  them  in  the  sense  in  which  they  affirm  them  ;  or  if  not,  in  what 
sense  you  do  deny  them  ;  and  whether  you  hold  the  opposite;  or  if  not,  whether  your  belief 
really  stops  with  the  mere  negative  of  the  common  belief? 

"  In  regard  to  the  second  position,  my  question  is.  whether  your  theory  implies  that  God  could 
have  prevented  all  sin,  or  the  present  degree  of  it  ?  The  question  relates  to  moral  agents  actually 
existing  ;  and  to  answer  it  by  savin:;,  yes,  God  could  have  prevented  all  sin,  or  the  present 
degree  of  it,  by  not  giving  existence  to  moral  beings, — would  be  a  mere  shufHe.  According  to 
your  theory,  was  God  able  to  prevent  sin  in  the  literal  sense,  (which  is  the  first  6ense  I  have  given 
of  power.) — that  is,  was  he  able  to  do  it,  if,  on  the  whole  he  had  chosen  to  do  it  ? 

"  As  you  appear  to  hold  that  God  could  not  prevent  sin,  in  tho  third  sense  I  have  given,  will 
you  inform  us  wherein  you  suppose  the  impossibility  or  absurdity  consists  ?  also  whether  you 
consider  it  impossible  or  absurd  in  all  cases  alike  for  God  to  prevent  sin  ?  and  if  not,  then  what 
makes  the  difference  ?  And  if  the  prevention  of  sin  is  impossible  in  this  sense,  that  is,  absurd 
and  contradictory  ;  then  in  what  sense  is  such  prevention  of  sin  an  object  of  God's  desiro  or 
choice  ? 

"  Will  you  inform  us  distinctly  what  you  mean  by  the  nature  of  things,  and  in  what  sense  and 
degree  you  suppo.se  the  power  of  God  limited  by  it? 

"  As  the  nature  of  moral  agency  is  much  concerned  with  this  discussion,  will  you  give  us  your 
views  of  it  verv  particularly  ?  Do  you  consider  it  to  be  such,  that  it  is  wholly  or  in  part  beyond 
the  power  of  God  to  direct  and  control  it  as  he  chooses  ?  If  you  say,  partly,  but  not  wholly  ; 
then  tell  us  whv  it  is  not  as  really  an  infringement  upon  moral  agency  for  God  to  control  it  in 
part,  as  wholly  ?  If  you  hold  that  God  cannot  control  moral  agency  in  all  cases,  though  he  can 
in  some  ;  then,  why  not  in  all,  as  well  as  in  some  ?  Also,  how  far  does  God  direct  events  in  the 
natural,  social  and  civil  world  ? 

"You  will  gratify  us,  by  showing  very  clearly  and  particularly,  what  that  is  in  the  nature  of 
moral  agents,  which  you  suppose  makes  it  impossible  for  God  to  form  their  characters  and  direct 
their  actions  according  to  his  own  pleasure  ?  Is  it  any  particular  faculty  or  attribute,  or  their 
whole  nature  taken  in  one  general  view  ? 

"  If  God  can  exert  no  influence  on  the  minds  of  men,  except  by  rational  motives,  can  he  make 
that  influence  effectual  to  sway  their  hearts,  when  he  pleases  ? 

"  We  shall  wish  to  know,  whether  your  theory  implies,  as  many  have  supposed  it  does,  that 
God  has  so  made  moral  agents  that  they  arc  independent  of  him,  as  to  their  moral  feelings  and 
actions  ?  If  you  hold  that  moral  agents,  as  such,  are  dependent  on  God ;  then,  how  far,  and  iu 
what  respects  are  they  so  ? 

"  As  this  discussion  is  intimately  connected  with  the  doctrine  of  divine  influence;  we  shall  be 
gratified  to  know  what  your  theory  is  in  respect  to  that  doctrine.  You  speak  of  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit  in  regeneration,  as  supernatural.  Will  you  inform  us  in  what  sense  you  use  the  word, 
supernatural  f  why  such  influence  is  necessary  ?  and  whether  the  Spirit  of  God  in  regeneratio» 
has  a  direct  influence  on  the  mind  itself? 

"  As  many  have  understood  you,  as  agreeing  substantially  with  the  Pelagians,  and  particularly 
with  Dr.  John  Taylor,  in  regard  to  the  natural  6tate  of  man,  free  will  and  conversion  ;  will  you 
inform  us  whether,  and  bow  far,  this  is  the  case  ? 

"  And  as  many  havs  doubted  whether  you  maintain  *.he  doctrine  cf  divite  decree*  and  divxa* 
sovereignty,  in  trip  Sens*  in  which  it  i«  commonly  maintained  by  the  orthodox,  will  you  inform  u* 
«n  this  subject  '.' 

* 


50  LETTERS    TO    THE 

"  Is  your  theory  of  moral  agency  the  same  as  that  which  Edwards  maintained  in  his  treatise  on 
the  Will  ? 

••  I  have  understood  you  as  holding,  that  God  could  not  have  done  better  than  he  has  for  any 
individual  moral  agent,  and  of  course  that  he  could  not  have  converted  any  more  sinners,  than 
he  has  converted.  Have  I  under.-tood  you  right  ?  If  God  pleased,  ~nd  saw  it  to  be  on  the  whole 
best,  could  he  convert  any  one,  and  every  one,  who  is  not  converted?  If  not ;  what  is  the  hindrance? 
And  is  that  hindrance  greater  here,  than  has  in  other  instances  been  overcome  by  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  ? 

"  If  you  see  faults  in  the  reasoning  in  Letter  VI,  or  if  you  suppose  that,  you  have  been  misun- 
derstood on  the  points  there  discussed  ;  you  will  particularly  inform  us.  —  Could  God,  according 
to  your  theory,  preserve  any  of  his  creatures  in  a  state  of  holiness,  without  the  influence  arising 
from  thn  existence  and  punishment  of  sin  ? 

"  Docs  your  theory  imply  that  the  only  choice  which  God  had,  was  between  the  present  moral 
system,  including  so  much  evil,  and  no  moral  system  at  all  ?  or  does  it  admit  that  there  might 
have  been  other  systems,  and  some  of  them  excluding  all  evil,  which  were  conceived  by  the  mind 
of  God,  to  which  ho  preferred  the  present  system  ? 

"  As  the  subjects  treated  of  in  Letter  VII  arc  of  a  practical  nature,  I  hope  you  will  express 
your  views  of  them  with  all  possible  plainness,  not  overlooking  the  questions  found  in  the  para- 
graph beginning  at  the  lower  part  of  p.  87.  The  same  as  to  the  several  articles  in  the  present 
Letter,  in  which  I  have  shown  what  I  apprehend  to  be  the  natural  influence  of  your  theory, 
compared  with  the  common  one. 

"  But  it  will  be  quite  unnecessary  for  me  to  go  over  the  whole  ground  of  the  discussion  in  order 
to  show  what.  I  consider  to  be  the  main  points.  You  will  see  what  they  are,  and  will  doubtless 
notice  them.  And  I  earnestly  hope,  that  you  will  do  all  in  your  power  to  remove  the  dissatisfaction 
and  disquietude  of  your  brethren,  far  and  near,  and  to  allay  their  honest  fears  in  regard  to  tha 
nature  and  consequences  of  your  speculations." 

Before  concluding  this  communication,  it  seems  proper  that  I  should  offer 
a  few  remarks : 

1.  On  your  use  of  the  words,  heresy  and  heretic.  I  have  marked  the 
places  in  your  Letters  where  these  words  are  used,  but  they  are  too  numer- 
ous to  be  quoted.  It  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  you  have  "  rung  the  changes  " 
on  these  words  long  and  loud.  We  know  very  well,  that  it  is  easy  to  excite 
sympathy  for  men,  and  especially  for  those,  who  occupy  important  stations 
in  the  church,  and  are  reputed  good  men,  by  holding  them  up  to  public  view 
as  having  been  denounced  as  heretics.  And  we  know  too,  that  it  is  no  difficult 
matter,  in  this  way,  to  bring  upon  those,  who  conscientiously  refuse  to  coun- 
tenance error,  much  public  odium.  Now  I  do  not  take  upon  myself  the 
responsibility  of  saying,  that  there  are  no  persons  in  community,  who  believe 
that  downright  heresy  is  inculcated  at  New  Haven,  and  that  the  opinion  has 
not  been  expressed  by  high  authority  out  of  the  Pastoral  Union  and  out  of 
the  ministry,  that  the  charter  of  Yale  College  has  been  endangered  by  pro- 
ceedings ill  connection  with  the  theological  department  in  that  institution  ;  but 
have  I  called  my  brethren  of  the  New  Haven  school  heretics,  or  denominated 
their  peculiar  sentiments  heresy  ?  No  —  never.  Neither  am  I,  or  the  Pastoral 
Union  accountable  for  the  opinions  or  expressions  of  individuals  ;  and  it  is  with 
me  and  the  Pastoral  Union,  as  a  body,  that  you  have  undertaken  to  deal.  And 
may  not  an  association  of  ministers  of  Christ  express  their  dissent  from,  and 
even  solemnly  protest  against  doctrines  publicly  maintained  and  zealously 
propagated,  without  being  thus  subjected  to  public  indignation  ?  Should  the 
popular  feeling  be  thus  addres?ed?  My  dear  sir,  can  you  not  defend  your 
cause  without  a  resort  to  such  measures  ? 

But  will  you  say,  although  the  Pastoral  Union  have  not  used  the  words, 
heresy  and  heretic,  they  have  done  that  which  amounts  to  the  same  thing. 
Allow  me  to  say,  the  Pastoral  Union  in  their  Protest  merely  quoted  and 
published,  without  note  or  comment,  the  language  of  their  opponents,  and  I 
think  you  would  have  done  better  had  you  copied  their  example  in  this  partic- 
ular.—  But  what  are  heretics?  Dr.  Watts  has  given  us  the  following 
answer :  "  When  a  papist  uses  the  word,  heretics,  he  generally  means  protest- 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  51 

ants;  when  a  protestant  uses  the  word,  he  means  any  persons  wilfully  and 
contentiously  obstinate  in  fundamental  errors."'  Have  the  Pastoral  Union  in 
any  of  their  acts  represented  their  brethren  of  the  New  Haven  school  as 
"  wilfully  and  co/dentioiisli/  obstinate  in  fundamental  errors.  V  For  aught  I 
know,  there  may  be  individuals  in  the  Pastoral  Union,  who  would  not  hesitate 
to  denominate  the  errors  described  in  the  Protest,  heresy.  There  may  be 
others  who  would  hesitate  to  apply  to  them  that  epithet.  In  the  view  of  some 
it  is  proper  to  denominate  any  sentiment  heretical,  which  by  legitimate  conse- 
quence subverts  any  of  the  fundamental  doctrinces  of  the  gospel.  Others 
apply  the  term  only  to  such  errors,  as  are  in  their  view  damnable  —  that  is, 
such  errors  as  can  not  be  believed  by  real  Christians.  Now,  sir,  in  commen- 
ting on  the  Protest  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  it  is  obviously  unjust  to  make  them 
responsible,  as  a  body,  for  the  language  which  they  have  not  used,  and  have  not 
sanctioned. 

2.  The  vote  of  the  Pastoral  Union  declaring  it  to  be  inconsistent  to  license, 
ordain,  tfce.  those  who  hold  the  errors  described  in  the  Protest,  you  con- 
sider as  interfering  with  the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  the  district  Associations 
and  ordaining  councils.  You  ask,  "  Is  it  right,  is  it  orderly,  is  it  —  in  the 
phrase  of  your  resolution —  ''consistent  "  for  certain  ministers,  coming  togeth- 
er in  a  society,  unknown  to  our  ecclesiastical  system,  to  forestall  in  that  one- 
sided societv  the  discussion  of  a  question  which  belongs  to  the  Association? 
Is  it  right,  is  it  orderly,  for  those  ministers,  after  such  an  exparle  discussion,  to 
commit  and  bind  themselves  by  resolutions,  and  then  to  attempt  to  make  those 
resolutions  more  binding  —  if  not  on  the  conscience,  at  least  on  the  weakness 
of  those  brethren  who  are  afraid  of  being  "inconsistent"  —  " by  publishing 
them  to  the  world?"  Here,  my  brother,  permit  me  to  ask  you  one  question. 
"  Is  it  right,  is  it  orderly,  is  it  —  in  the  phrase  of  the  resolution  —  consistent, 
for  certain  ministers"  to  be  zealously  engaged  in  teaching  and  propagating 
sentiments  which  are  believed  to  be  subversive  of  the  established  faith  of  our 
churches  and  Associations,  and  then  demand  of  their  brethren,  who  are  known 
to  be  conscientiously  opposed  to  those  sentiments,  that  they  set  to  them  their 
most  solemn  seal  of  approbation?  This  is  requiring  too  much.  We  are 
willing  that  our  New  Haven  brethren  should  think,  speak,  and  act  for  them- 
selves" We  would  not  infringe  their  right  of  embracing  such  doctrines  as 
they  please,  and  of  adopting  all  suitable  means  for  propagating  their  senti- 
ments ;  but  if  they  go  farther  and  demand  of  us  that  we  become  responsible 
for  doctrines  which  we  believe  to  be  erroneous  and  dangerous,  they  infringe 
our  rights  of  conscience,  and  they  transcend  the  limits  of  justice.  And  what 
I  am  about  to  say,  you  will  not  receive  as  a  menace,  —  no  such  thing  is  inten- 
ded, —  nor  as  expressing  otherwise  than  my  private  judgment ;  if  you  and 
your  associates  insist  upon  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union  becoming  respon- 
sible for  doctrines  which  they  repudiate,  you  will  meet  with  decided,  open, 
unyielding  opposition.  This  opposition  will  be  sustained  by  the  claims  of  reli- 
gious liberty,  by  the  demands  of  justice,  by  the  dictates  of  conscience,  and  by 
the  fear  of  God.  We  are  willing  to  act  on  the  principle  of  reciprocity, 
granting  to  you  the  privileges,  which  we  claim  for  ourselves.  And  if  we  are 
not  recreant  to  our  vows,  Task  you,  sir,  can  we  act  on  a  more  liberal  principle  ? 

Allow  me  here  to  remark,  that  you  greatly  mistake  the  object  of  the  Pasto- 
ral Union,  if  you  suppose  they  intended,  by  the  vote  referred  to  above,  to 
interfere  with  the  Associations,  or  any  of  our  regular  ecclesiastical  bodies. 
This  vote  is  an  expression  of  their  opinion,  on  the  subject  of  licensing  candi- 
dates, and  ordaining  and  installing  pastors.     And  have  not  the  members  of 


62  LETTERS    TO    THE 

the  Pastoral  Union  a  right  to  express  their  opinion  on  this,  as  well  as  on  any 
other  subject  ?  Must  they  first  gain  permission  before  they  express  their 
thoughts  on  this  grave  subject  ?  If  so,  to  whom  shall  they  apply  for  permis- 
sion ?  If  you  should  publicly  affirm,  that  it  would  be  improper  to  license  men 
to  preach  the  gospel,  who  had  not  pursued  a  course  of  theological  studies,  or 
who  were  destitute  of  natural  or  acquired  abilities,  or  who  embraced  certain 
erroneous  sentiments  ;  should  you  suppose  you  were  interfering  with  the 
prerogatives  of  our  district  Associations  by  the  expression  of  such  an  opinion  ? 
And  if  the  Association  of  Gentlemen,  who  conducted  the  Christian  Spectator, 
had  made  a  similar  declaration,  tell  me.  would  they  have  been  considered  as 
having  done  what  they  had  no  right  to  do?  Suppose  the  members  of  some 
one  of  our  ministers'  meetings,  should  express  the  opinion  and  publish  it  to  the 
world  that  it  would  be  inconsistent  for  Congregational  ministers  to  license 
those  to  preach  the  gospel,  who  deny  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism,  or  who 
hold  the  system  of.  doctrines  maintained  by  the  Wesley  an  Methodists ;  would 
they  be  considered  as  interfering  with  the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  our 
Associations  ?  And  suppose  on  the  publication  of  this  opinion  a  Baptist,  or 
Methodist  minister  should  say,  '*  The  question  now  before  the  public  is  not 
whether  the"  Baptists  and  Methodists  "are right  in  their  speculations,"  —  but 
whether  they  are  so  far  gone  in  error  as  to  justify  the  measures  "which  have 
been  adopted,  and  the  representations  which  have  been  uttered  "  —  "  whether 
in  the  attempt  to  break  them  down,  and  denounce  them  to  the  country  and 
to  posterity  as  heretics,"  the  Christian  community  "  of  Connecticut,  heretofore 
so  rich  in  blessings  for  the  world,  shall  be  rent  in  fragments  and  exhaust  their 
energies  upon  party  conflicts ;"  would  you  not  think,  sir,  that  this  Baptist  or 
Methodist  minister  was,  in  rather  a  questionable  manner,  attempting  to  secure 

Popular  sympathy  ?  —  My  dear  sir,  I  think  I  have  already  shown,  that  the 
'astoral  Union  had  a  right  to  protest  against  what  they  deemed  to  be  errone- 
ous sentiments  ;  and  had  they  not  a  right  to  state,  what  they  considered  to  be 
their  own  duty  in  reference  to  licensing,  ordaining,  &c.  those  who  maintain 
these  sentiments  ?  Let  those  who  believe  the  doctrines  against  which  the 
Pastoral  Union  protested,  assume  the  responsibility  of  disseminating  them ; 
but  why  should  they  wish  to  make  their  brethren  accountable  for  sentiments 
■which  they  do  not  believe,  and  for  acts  which  they  do  not  approve  ? 
Affectionately  and  sincerely, 

your  friend  and  brother. 

GEORGE  A.  CALHOUN. 
Coventry,  January  11,  1840. 


Hetter  &XSX. 

Dear  Sir, —  I  quote  the  following  extracts  from  your  second  Letter. 

"  But  it  was  not  thought  best  to  leave  truth  and  argument  to  do  their  own  work.  From  th» 
beginning  of  the  controversy,  and  from  before  the  beginning,  one  man  has  continually  labored  to 
bring  other  forces  to  bear  on  the  result,  and  especially  to  spread  far  and  wide  the  most  dreadful 
impressions  respecting  '  the  New  Haven  heresy.'  To  this  end  —  being  exempted  by  circumstan. 
•«■  from  the  necessity  of  any  other  labor,  —  he  has  employed,  with  great  zeal,  all  the  powers  of 
his  mind,  and  all  the  personal  influence  which  he  had  acquired  by  labors  once  performed  in  a  very 
different  service.  I  mean  the  Rev.  Asahel  Nettleton,  whose  career  for  the  last  fifteen  years  has 
been,  to  me,  a  sad  illustration  of  the  impolicy  of  encouraging  in  any  circumstances,  such  a 
functionary  as  a  professional  revivalist.  —  The  men  who  were  his  best  friends  in  the  days  of  his 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  53 

real  and  toil  for  the  conversion  of  sinners  to  Christ  —  the  men  who  took  him  by  the  hand  and 
helped  him  to  rise,  when  others  thought  lightly  of  him  —  the  men  by  whose  aid,  and  in  whose 
parishes  he  gained  the  reputation  which  gives  him  more  than  half  his  influence,  have  found  that 
influence  turned  against  themselves,  to  make  them  first  suspected,  then  odious,  and  to  cause  their 
names  to  be  cast  out  as  evil.  I  speak  not  of  that  brother's  motives,  I  bring  no  accusations  against 
him  —  to  his  own  master  let  him  stand  or  fall ;  I  speak  only  of  facts  not  to  be  disputed.  He 
himself  will  be  the  last  to  deny  that  his  influence  has  had  more  to  do  with  what  I  esteem  the 
disastrous  bearing  of  this  controversy  than  any  other  human  influence.  Had  the  revivals,  under 
the  ministry  of  Dr.  Taylor,  at  New  Haven,  and  Dr.  Beccher,  at.  Litchfield,  been  conducted 
without  the  aid  of  an  itinerant  evangelist,  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  Connecticut,  and  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States,  for  these  few  years  past.,  would  have  been  materially 
different.  —  Other  men,  doubtless,  felt,  and  might  have  felt  without  his  aid,  the  necessity  of 
forming  a  party,  and  of  adding  to  the  force  of  argument,  the  force  of  party  combination,  and  the 
force  of  reports  and  whisperings  scattered  by  epistle  and  personal  conference  over  all  the  land  ; 
but  no  man  having  the  charge  of  a  parish,  no  travelling  agent  even,  having  on  his  hands  the  work 
of  the  institution  which  employs  him,  could  accomplish  much  in  this  way  under  our  ecclesiasti- 
cal organization.  —  Only  such  a  man  as  he  whom  I  have  named  —  travelling  from  one  end  of 
the  country  to  another,  and  going  beyond  the  Atlantic,  to  instil  prejudice  into  every  credulous  or 
unguarded  mind  ;  gathering  up  reports  wherever  they  could  be  found,  and  scattering  them 
wherever  they  were  likely  to  take  root ;  establishing  confidence  and  correspondences  that  have 
grown  into  telegraphic  communicutions  of  common  fame,  and  devoting  himself  to  the  work  with 
the  zeal  of  an  apostle  —  could  have  brought  to  pass  that,  of  which  you  and  I  and  all  of  us  are 
witnesses." 

Speaking  of  the  convention  held  at  East  Windsor  —  September,  1834; 
you  ask,  "  Did  not  Mr.  Nettleton  unfold  his  treasure  of  reports  and  opinions, 
gathered  from  east  and  west,  north  and  south,  all  implicating  the  character 
of  brethren  who  were  not  there  to  plead,  either  guilty  or  not  guilty,  to  things 
thus  brought  against  them  ?" 

Your  attack  on  Dr.  Nettleton,  my  brother,  has  inflicted  a  deeper  wound  on 
the  feelings  of  many  of  your  readers,  than  you  are  probably  aware.  That 
minister  of  Christ  has  numerous  friends  to  whom  his  reputation  is  as  dear  as 
their  own,  and  sure  I  am  that  there  are  thousands  in  New  England  "  who  will 
consider  that  in  defending  him,  they  defend  the  cause  in  one  of  its  most  vital 
points." 

"  One  man  has  continually  labored  lo  bring  other  forces  to  bear  on  the  result, 
and  especially  to  spread  far  and  wide  the  most  dreadful  impressions  respecting 
the  New  Haven  heresy." 

What  evidence  have  you,  that  Dr.  Nettleton  has  ever  called  the  New  Ha- 
ven Divinity  heresy,  or  the  New  Haven  divines  heretics  ?  He  has  no  recol- 
lection of  ever  having  used  such  language,  and  his  most  intimate  friends  assure 
me,  that  they  have  never  heard  him  use  it.  That  the  New  Haven  Divines 
have,  in  their  published  writings,  advanced  great  and  dangerous  errors,  errors 
which  are  suited  to  corrupt  revivals,  promote  spurious  conversions,  and  thus 
exert  a  disastrous  influence  on  the  cause  of  evangelical  religion,  in  his  honest 
belief.  This  belief  he  has  not  hesitated  to  express  on  all  suitable  occasions. 
But  he  has  never  represented  their  errors  in  such  a  shocking  light  as  they 
have  represented  the  sentiments  of  their  brethren.  He  has  never  said,  that 
nothing  but  their  "  inconsistency  saves  them  from  being  the  very  worst  of  her- 
etics." He  has  never  charged  them  with  asserting  that  "  sin  is  a  good  thing  ;" 
and  with  maintaining  theories  which  make  "  God  the  responsible  author  of 
sin  "  —  "a  deceiver  " —  and  a  "  criminal  tempter."  He  has  not  charged  them 
with  maintaining  a  principle  which  "by  legitimate  consequence  leads  to 
universalis*!,  to  infidelity,  and  atheism;"  and  "which  in  the  hands  of 
Voltaire  and  other  enemies  of  the  gospel  has  spread  infidelity  and  atheism  to 
such  a  fearful  extent  throughout  Europe."  No  sir,  he  has  made  no  such 
representation  —  nothing  like  it  —  nothing  to  be  compared  with  it.  What 
do  you  mean  then  by  the  sweeping  charges  that  he  has  "  continually  labored 


54  LETTERS    TO    THE 

—  to  spread  far  and  wide  the  most  dreadful  impressions  respecting  the  New 
Haven  heresy  ?"  Suppose  he  has  expressed  his  belief  that  some  of  the 
principles  advanced  by  the  New  Haven  divines,  do  inevitably  lead  to  Armini- 
an,  or  Pelagian  conclusions  ;  and  that  they  are  the  very  principles  maintained 
by  Dr.  John  Taylor,  and  other  opposers  of  the  Calvinistic  system  ;  —  do  you 
consider  Arminianism  and  Pelagianism  to  be  worse  than  universalism,  infidelity 
and  atheism  ?  And  is  it  worse,  in  your  estimation,  to  be  ranked  with  Dr. 
John  Taylor,  than  with  Voltaire  and  other  infidel  philosophers  ?  Who  is  it, 
my  dear  sir,  that  has  spread  far  and  wide  the  most  dreadful  impressions  re- 
specting the  opinions  of  his  brethren  ?  * 

That  Dr.  Nettleton  has  from  the  beginning  been  greatly  distressed  on 
account  of  the  speculations  of  the  New  Haven  brethren,  is  true.  It  has 
been  his  solemn  conviction,  that  these  speculations  are  calculated  to  do  great 
injury  to  the  cause  of  Christ.  This  conviction,  I  am  assured,  he  has  again 
and  again  expressed  to  the  New  Haven  brethren  themselves.  He  has  expres- 
sed it  to  others.  He  has  felt  it  his  duty  to  bear  his  testimony  against  what  he 
regards  dangerous  sentiments,  and  to  exert  what  influence  God  has  given  him 
to  promote  the  cause  of  truth  and  righteousness.  And  has  he  not  a  right  to 
do  it  ?     Is  he  not  solemnly  bound  to  do  it  1 

And  what  "  other  forces  "  than,  "  those  of  truth  and  argument,"  has  he 
brought  "  to  bear  on  the  result  ?"  Has  he  undertaken  to  sway  the  minds  of 
his  brethren  in  any  other  way  than  by  addressing  their  understandings,  and 
presenting  to  them  such  considerations  as  are  suited  to  produce  conviction  ? 
And  if  he  has  exerted  one  fourth  part  of  the  influence  which  you  attribute 
to  him,  (and  that  his  influence  has  been  great  I  shall  not  deny.)  what  but  truth 
and  argument  have  given  him  this  power  ?  Who  are  the  men,  whom  you 
represent  as  being  under  his  influence  ?  —  Are  the}7  men  of  no  understandings 

—  men  who  do  not  think  and  reason  for  themselves  ?  Are  they  men  who  are 
governed  by  a  blind  impulse,  and  who  bow  implicitly  to  the  dictation  of  a 
single  individual  ?  Are  you  aware,  sir,  what  imputations  you  cast  upon  a  large 
portion  of  the  ministers  of  Connecticut  ? 

But  to  return  to  Dr.  Nettleton.  What  has  he  done  ?  If  he  is  to  be 
arraigned  before  the  public,  let  us  have  specific  allegations,  and  not  general 
and  indefinite  charges  which  no  one  can  answer.  It  is  easy  to  charge  any 
man  with  having  been,  for  a  course  of  years,  engaged  in  nothing  but  mischief; 
but  who  can  meet  such  a  charge  ?  Let  us  have  the  facts  and  the  proof  of 
them  ;  or  some  of  them  at  least ;  for  surely  if  the  general  allegation  is  true, 
they  must  be  abundant,  and  can  be  easily  specified. 

You  speak  of  "  party  combinations  "  —  of  "  reports  and  whisperings  scat- 
tered by  epistle  and  by  personal  conference  over  all  the  land  —  of  travelling 
from  one  end  of  the  conntry  to  the  other,  and  going  beyond  the  Atlantic,  to 
instil  prejudice  into  every  credulous  or  unguarded  mind  ;  gathering  up  reports 
wherever  they  could  be  found,  and  scattering  them  wherever  they  were 
likely  to  take  root."  —  Now  what  does  all  this  mean  ?  What  "  party  combi- 
nations" has  Dr.  Nettleton  formed?  What  "  reports  and  whisperings"  has 
he  "  scattered  by  epistle  and  personal  conference  over  all  the  land  ?"  Has 
he  circulated  any  false  reports?  If  so,  what  are  they?  He  has  doubtless 
written  letters  to  his  friends,  and  had  personal  conference  with  them  as 
opportunity  afforded.  Is  this  a  crime  ?  If  there  has  been  any  thing  impro- 
per in  his  communications,  any  thing  deserving  of  public  reprehension,  let  us 
know  what  it  is.  He  has  no  doubt  expressed  freely  to  his  friends,  both  in 
conversation  and  writing,  his  theological  opinions,  and  his  dissatisfaction  with 

*  See  an  article  by  Dr.  Taylor  in  the  Christian  Spectator  for  Sept.,  1832. 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  55 

publications  which  he  regards  as  containing  erroneous  sentiments  ;  and  has 
he  not  a  right  to  do  it  I  Have  others  a  right  to  speak  from  the  pulpit  and 
the  press,  and  to  scatter  their  sentiments  over  the  "land  ;  and  is  he  bound  to  be 
silent  ?  Suppose  he  has  travelled  into  different  parts  of  the  country,  and  even 
beyond  the  Atlantic.  —  What  then  ?  Was  that  of  course  a  crime  ?  Must 
he  necessarily  have  been  influenced  by  some  sinister  motive  ?  Could  he  have 
had  no  other  object  in  view  than  to  slander  his  brethren,  and  "  to  instil  preju- 
dice into  every  credulous,  or  unguarded  mind  V,  What  proof  is  there  that 
such  has  been  "his  object  ?  Away,  my  brother,  with  all  such  evil  surmises. 
Give  us  facts  and  proofs.  Is  a  minister  of  the  gospel  to  be  publicly  arraigned 
and  condemned  on  general  and  indefinite  charges,  without  one  single  specifi- 
cation, or  one  particle  of  proof  '?  Would  you,  sir,  be  willing  to  have  your 
character  thus  assailed  ?  It  is  my  sincere  desire,  that  it  may  never  be  thus 
assailed. 

You  ask,  "  Did  not  Mr.  Nettleton,  (in  the  convention  at  East  Windsor,) 
unfold  his  treasure  of  reports  and  opinions,  gathered  from  east  and  west, 
from  north  and  south,  all  implicating  the  character  of  brethren  who  were  not 
there  to  plead,  either  guilty  or  nof  guilty  to  the  things  thus  alleged  against 
them  P  Why  do  you  ask  this  question  ?  You  profess  to  be  entirely  ignorant 
of  what  transpired  in  the  convention.  WThy  then  do  you  throw  out  the 
insinuation  which  this  inquiry  implies  ?  Suppose  you  had  been  present  in  a 
meeting  of  ministers  of  whose  proceedings  I  had  no  knowledge.  Suppose 
one  of  your  brethren  who  was  there  also  had  publicly  spoken  of  it  as  a  very 
interesting  meeting  —  that  the  time  was  spent  in  "  solemn  deliberation  and 
prayer,  and  that  the  brethren  appeared  to  act  in  the  fear  of  God  and  for  the 
honor  of  Christ."  —  And  suppose  I  should  come  forward  in  the  public  prints, 
and  should  put  to  that  brother  this  question :  Did  not  Mr.  Bacon  occupy 
much  of  the  time,  in  bringing  false  and  slanderous  accusations  against  "  breth- 
ren who  were  not  there  to  plead,  either  guilty  or  not  guilty  to  the  things  thus 
alledged  against  them  P  What  would  you  say  to  such  an  interrogation,  and 
such  "an  insinuation,  made  confessedly  without  any  evidence  to  sustain  it  T 
Instead  of  answering  such  a  question,  would  you  not  be  likely  to  demand  the 
reason  why  it  was  put  ?  Although  I  feel  under  no  obligation  to  answer  such 
questions,  yet  I  am  willing  to  say,  that  Dr.  Nettleton  made  no  statements  in 
the  convention  about  absent  brethren  which  he  had  not  often  made  to  them, 
or  which  he  is  not  willing  to  make  to  them  in  the  presence  of  the  whole  world. 
You  say,  — 

"  The  men  who  were  his  best  friends  in  the  days  of  his  zeal  and  toil  for  the  conversion  of  sinners 
to  Christ  —  the  men  who  took  him  by  the  hand  and  helped  him  to  rise  when  others  thought 
lightly  of  him  —  tho  men  by  whose  aid  and  in  whose  parishes  he  gained  the  reputation  which 
gives  him  more  than  half  his  influence,  have  found  that  influence  turned  against  themselves,  to 
make  them  first  suspected,  then  odious,  and  to  cause  their  names  to  be  cast  out  as  evil.  —  Had 
the  revivals  under  the  ministry  of  Dr.  Taylor,  at  New  Haven,  and  Dr.  Beecher.  at  Litchfield 
been  conducU-.i  without  tlio  aid  of  an  itinerant  evangelist,  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  Connec- 
ticut, and  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States  for  these  few  years  past,  would  have 
been  materially  different." 

On  this  statement  you  must  allow  mc  to  make  several  remarks. 

«  When  other*  thought  lightly  of  him."  By  whom  was  he  thought  lightly 
of  at  the  period  to  which  you  refer?  He  was  indeed,  ridiculed,  reproached, 
and  slandered  by  universalists,  infidels  and  scoffers  ;  but  by  the  ministers  and 
churches  of  his  own  denomination,  so  far  as  they  were  acquainted  with  him, 
he  was  universally  esteemed.  Dr.  Porter  thus  speaks  of  him  in  his  Letters 
on  Revivals  :  "  About  the  close  of  the  period  which  I  attempted  to  describe 


56  LETTERS    TO    THE 

in  former  letters,  the  Rev.  Asahel  Nettleton  devoted  himself  to  the  work  of 
an  evangelist.  With  his  eminent  qualifications  for  this  work,  and  usefulness 
in  it,  I  presume  you  to  be  well  acquainted.  The  fact,  however,  which  is  es- 
pecially to  my  present  purpose  to  mention,  and  which  probably  many  of 
you  do  not  know,  is  that  this  distinguished  itinerant,  found  no  difficulty  to 
labor,  as  an  assistant  of  stated  pastors,  without  making  himself  their  rival. 
If  in  any  instance  he  could  not  conscientiously  coincide  in  the  views,  or  co-op- 
erate in  the  measures  of  a  pastor,  among  whose  charge  he  was  invited  to 
labor,  he  did  not  sow  dissention  in  that  church,  nor  seek  to  detach  their  affec- 
tions from  their  ministers ;  but  quietly  withdrew  to  another  place.  The 
consequence  was,  that  the  visits  of  this  devoted  servant  of  Christ  were 
always  sought,  and  never  dreaded  nor  regretted  by  ministers  or  churches." 

"  Itinerant  evangelist" — How  came  Dr.  Nettleton  to  be  an  evangelist  ?  It 
was  his  purpose,  for  some  time  before  he  became  a  preacher,  to  be  a  mission- 
ary to  the  heathen.  Accordingly,  after  he  was  licensed  to  preach,  not  expect- 
ing to  remain  long  in  the  country,  he  commenced  laboring  in  waste  places. 
His  labors  were  immediately  attended  with  signal  success.  Whereever  he 
went,  revivals  of  religion  soon  commenced.  His  brethren  in  the  ministry, 
witnessing  his  success,  persuaded  him  to  relinquish  the  idea  of  a  foreign  mis- 
sion, at  least  for  a  time,  and  devote  himself  to  the  work  of  an  evangelist  at 
home,  under  the  conviction  that  God  had  called  him  to  this  department  of 
ministerial  labor.  Still  it  was  always  his  purpose  to  labor  in  destitute  con- 
gregations and  waste  places,  and  it  was  not  without  solicitation,  as  many  will 
testify,  that  he  consented  to  labor  as  an  assistant  to  settled  pastors.  He  was 
never  complained  of  for  thrusting  himself  into  parishes  where  he  was  not 
wanted  ;  but  the  complaint  continually  was,  that  it  was  so  difficult  to  obtain 
him.  And  here  allow  me  to  remark,  that  Dr.  Nettleton  himself  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  man  to  discover  the  evils  which  would  be  likely  to  flow  out  of 
the  system  of  maintaining  an  order  of  evangelists,  as  assistants  to  settled  pas- 
tors. Accordingly  when  the  General  Association  in  1820  appointed  a  com- 
mittee, of  whom  Dr.  Beecher  was  chairman,  to  take  into  consideration  the 
subject  of  increasing  ministerial  labor  in  the  several  congregations  in  our 
connection,  and  when  that  committee  met  the  September  following,  at  the 
house  of  Dr.  Taylor,  in  New-Haven,  Dr.  Nettleton  was  invited  in,  and  con- 
sulted as  to  the  expediency  of  introducing  and  supporting  an  order  of  evan- 
gelists. He  was  asked  whether  he  would  consent  to  act  as  an  evangelist  for 
the  State,  and  was  told,  if  he  would  locate  himself  at  New-Haven,  in  that 
capacity,  it  was  believed  the  churches  would  guarantee  him  an  ample  support. 
He  remarked  that  he  never  had  yet  received  a  dollar  from  any  benevolent 
society  or  public  association,  and  that  he  did  not  choose  to  labor  in  this  way. 
He  moreover  gave  it  as  his  opinion,  that  it  would  be  inexpedient  to  undertake 
to  introduce  and  support  an  order  of  evangelists.  He  foresaw  the  evils  which 
would  be  likely  to  grow  out  of  the  system,  if  it  were  made  a  permanent  thing ; 
and  they  were  the  very  evils  which  were  afterwards  so  strikingly  realized  in 
some  parts  of  the  country.  Through  his  influence,  if  I  am  correctly  informed, 
the  project  was  abandoned. 

"  The  men  who  took  him  by  the  hand  and  helped  him  to  rise."  It  should  be 
remembered,  that  Dr.  Nettleton  had  been  laboring  almost  constantly  in  revivals 
of  religion,  for  about  four  years,  and  was  extensively  known  as  a  successful 
minister  of  the  gospel,  before  he  became  associated  with  Dr.  Beecher  and  Dr. 
Taylor,  or  to  use  your  language,  before  they  "  took  him  by  the  hand."  How 
much  he  was  indebted  to  them  for  his  subsequent  usefulness,  I  shall  not  un- 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  57 

dertake  to  decide.  Whatever  may  have  been  his  obligations  to  them,  I  trust 
he  is  not  unmindful  of  them.  Of  one  thing,  however,  I  am  certain  ;  the  time 
has  been  when  they,  as  well  as  many  other  men  of  distinction,  have  been  willing 
to  acknowledge  themselves  greatly  his  debtors.  If  Dr.  Beecher  and  Dr. 
Taylor  made  Dr.  Nettleton  what  he  was,  as  has  been  claimed,  why  have  they 
not  raised  up  other  men  equally  distinguished  ?  Why  was  Dr.  Nettleton,  in 
1825,  urgently  requested  to  come  to  New-llaven  for  "the  purpose  of  teaching 
a  young  pastor  "  to  be  an  accomplished  revival  man  "?  Why  did  not  Dr. 
Taylor  undertake  the  work?  And  why  did  a  distinguished  man  of  New-Ha- 
ven, in  1824,  request  Dr.  Nettleton  to  take  under  his  instruction  a  young  brother 
in  the  ministry,  and  particular  friend  of  his,  that  he  might  "  learn  the  great  art 
of  doing  good,"  adding,  "  almost  all  that  I  know  on  this  subject,  I  learned  from 
you  "?  Why  did  he  not  apply  directly  to  the  men  who  had  taught  Dr.  N.  this 
great  art,  or  who  had  made  him  what  he  was  ?  Besides  —  did  your  predeces- 
sor ever  witness  any  revivals  of  religion  among  his  people  till  he  was  assisted 
by  Dr.  Nettleton?  If  he  did  not,  how  shall  we  account  for  the  fact,  if  Dr.  N. 
learned  the  art  of  doing  good  from  Dr.  Taylor  and  Dr.  Beecher  ?  He  had  for 
four  years  been  laboring  almost  constantly  in  revivals.  I  should  not  ask  these 
questions,  had  not  the  representations  which  have  gone  abroad  rendered  it 
necessary.  My  dear  sir,  no  man — no  set  of  men,  niade  Dr.  Nettleton  what  he 
was.  It  was  the  remark  of  John  Newton,  that  "  none  but  he  who  made  the 
world,  can  make  a  minister  of  the  gospel."  This  remark  is  pre-eminently  true, 
of  such  a  minister  as  Dr.  Nettleton.  For  all  the  success  which  has  attended 
his  labors,  let  God  only  be  praised. 

"  The  men  by  lohose  aid,  and  in  whose  parishes,  he  gained  the  reputation  which 
gives  him  more  than  half  his  influence."  ■  It  is  true,  that  the  labors  of  Dr.  Net- 
tleton were  attended  with  great  success,  in  repeated  instances,  both  in  Litch- 
field and  New-Haven.  But  they  were  equally  successful  in  many  other 
places,  both  before  and  after  his  visit  to  those  towns.  He  commenced  preach- 
ing in  1811.  From  that  time  to  1822,  (when  he  was  brought  to  death's  door 
by  the  typhus  fever,  and  when  standing  by  his  bed  of  death,  as  it  was  supposed, 
I  heard  from  his  lips  facts  respecting  his  labors  and  wants,  which  would  have 
interested  your  feelings  much,)  he  was  almost  constantly  in  revivals  of  religion, 
and  so  abundant  were  his  labors,  that  to  many  of  his  brethren  it  was  a  wonder 
that  his  constitution  could  sustain  them.  Have  you  never  heard  of  the  reviv- 
als in  South  Salem,  N.  Y.,  in  Danbury,  in  Monroe,  in  North  Lyme,  in  Had- 
lyme,  in  Chester,  in  Bloomfield,  in  Turkcyhills,  in  Salmon  Brook,  in  Bolton 
and  in  Litchfield  South  Farms  ?  These  occurred  previous  to  his  first  visit 
at  New-Haven,  in  1815.  During  the  same  period  he  preached  occasionally 
in  many  other  places,  and  in  almost  all  instances  some  sinners  were  awakened 
by  his  preaching.  Subsequent  to  this  period,  have  you  not  heard  of  the  reviv- 
als in  Salisbury,  (where  nearly  three  hundred  were  supposed  to  have  experi- 
enced religion,)  in  Bridge  water,  in  Torrington,  in  Watcrbury,  in  Middletown 
Upper  Houses,  in  Rocky  Hill,  in  Ashford  and  other  towns  adjoining,  and  a^am 
in  Bolton?  All  these  occurred  between  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1815*^x1 
the  summer  of  1819.  Have  you  never  heard  of  the  remarkable  work  of  God 
in  Saratoga  county,  N.  Y.,in  1819  and  1820,  extending  into  many  towns  and 
into  Union  College,  in  which,  according  to  the  account  written  by  Dr.  McAu- 
ley,  not  less  than  2000  souls  were  supposed  to  have  been  made  subjects  of 
renewing  grace  ?  Have  you  never  heard  of  the  very  powerful  revivals  in 
Nassau,  N.  Y.,  in  North  Killingworth,  in  North  Madison,  and  in  Wetherafield, 
8 


58  LETTERS    TO    THE 

which  occurred  in  1820  ?  Have  you  never  heard  of  Dr.  Nettleton's  labors  in 
1821,  at  Farmington  and  the  adjoining  towns  ;  also  in  Massachusetts,  at  Pitts- 
field,  Lenox  and  Lee  ;  and  in  1822  at  Somers  and  Tolland,  and  North  Coventry 
and  South  Wilbraham,  Mass.  ?  My  dear  Sir,  if  you  had  been  as  well  acquaint- 
ed with  the  history  of  Dr.  Nettleton  as  some  of  your  older  brethren,  I  do  not 
believe  you  would  ever  have  affirmed  that  it  was  in  L'tchfield  and  New-Haven 
that  he  "'gained  the  reputation  which  gives  more  than  half  his  influence."  His 
labors  in  those  places,  it  is  true,  (and  especially  when  we  take  into  consideration 
the  revivals  in  Yale  College,  which  occurred  in  connection  with  his  labors  in 
New-Haven.)  constitute  an  interesting  portion  of  his  history  ;  but  still  it  is 
comparatively  but  a  small  portion. 

"  Had  the  revivals  under  the  ministry  of  Dr.  Taylor,  at  New-Haven,  and  Dr. 
Beecher,  at  Litchfield,  been  conducted  without  the  aid  of  an  itinerant  evangelist, 
the  ecclesiastical  history  of  Connecticut,  and  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States,  for  these few  years  past,  would  have  been  materially  different.''' 

As  you  do  not  tell  us  in  what  respects  it  would  have  been  materially  different, 
we  are  left  to  infer  your  meaning  from  the  train  of  your  reasoning.  If  I  under- 
stand it,  it  is  this;  —  that  the  controversy  and  division  which  exist  among  the 
ministers  of  Connecticut,  and  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  to  be  traced,  in  a 
great  measure,  at  least,  to  the  fact  that  Dr.  Nettleton  preached  for  a  season  in 
New-Haven  and  Litchfield,  some  eighteen,  twenty,  and  twenty-five  years  ago. 
Truly  Dr.  Taylor  and  Dr.  Beecher  little  thought  what  they  were  doing,  when 
they  invited  and  urged  that  brother  to  assist  them  in  their  labors.  And  I  very 
much  doubt  whether  they  ever  would  have  known,  if  you  had  not  informed 
them,  that  so  much  evil  was  connected  with  this  imprudent  step  of  theirs. 
According  to  your  representation,  they  certainly  have  much  to  account  for. 

"The  men  by  whose  aid,  and  in  whose  parishes  he  gained  the  reputation 
which  gives  him  more  than  half  his  influence,  have  found  that  influence  turned 
against  themselves,  to  jnake  them  first  susjjected,  then  odious,  and  to  cause  their 
names  to  be  cast  out  as  evil." 

How  has  his  influence  been  turned  against  them  ?  What  has  he  done  ?  He 
has  indeed  refused  to  embrace,  or  to  countenance,  sentiments  which  he  honestly 
believes  to  de  false  and  dangerous.  And  has  any  man  a  right  to  require  him 
to  do  it  1  I  have  the  best  reason  for  believing,  that  Dr.  Nettleton  highly  prized 
the  friendship  of  Dr.  Taylor  and  Dr.  Beecher,  and  that  he  would  gladly  have 
made  any  sacrifice  to  retain  it,  but  a  surrender  of  conscience.  But  this 
sacrifice  he  could  not  make.  His  oblisraiions  to  the  Great  Head  of  the  church 
were  paramout  to  all  other  obligations.  When  he  found  that  his  brethren 
were  embracing  and  abetting  sentiments,  which  he  could  not  approve,  in  a 
friendly  and  faithful  manner  he  expostulated  with  them,  both  in  private 
conversation  and  by  letters.  Thus  in  1821,  he  wrote  to  Dr.  Taylor,  "  with 
all  my  love  and  respect  for  brothers  Taylor,  Goodrich,  and  Beecher,  I  must 
say,  that  neither  my  judgment,  nor  conscience,  nor  heart  can  acquiesce  ;  I  can 
go  with  you  no  farther."  And  at  a  later  period,  in  1829,  when  Dr.  Beecher  at- 
tempted to  persuade  him, that  if  he  could  not  approve  of  the  New-Haven  senti- 
ments, he  would,  at  least,  hold  his  peace,  and  not  express  any  dissatisfaction 
with  them,  he  said  to  him,  "  you  might  as  well  ask  me  to  cut  off'  my  conscience 
and  throw  it  away."  He  said  also, "  such  is  my  conviction  of  the  tendency  of 
all  these  sentiments  to  corrupt  revivals  and  produce  spurious  conversions,  that  if 
New-England  should  go  over,  I  should  prefer  to  stand  alone."  Such  being 
hi9  convictions,  what  was  it  his  duty  to  do  ?  Is  moral  principle  to  be  sacrificed 
on  the  altar  of  friendship  ?  Is  he  indeed  worthy  the  name  of  a  friend  who 
demands  such  a  sacrifice  ? 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  59 

If  Dr.  Nettleton  has  manifested  an  unchristian  spirit,  or  if  he  has  resorted 
to  anv  dishonorable  means  to  promote  what  lie  believes  to  bo  the  cause  of 
truth,  let  it  bo  shown.  lias  he  treated  his  brethren  with  unkindness  ?  Has  he 
impeached  their  motive-:  —  depreciated  their  talents — or  aspersed  their 
character  ?  What  then  has  he  done  to  render  them  odious,  and  to  cause  their 
names  to  be  cast  out  as  evil  :*'  ufttess  it  be  to  bear  testimony  against  the  errors 
which  they  have  published  to  the  world  I 

That  the  influence  ofDr.  Nettli  t  m  has  b  i  m  greatly  feared  by  the  abettors 
of  the  New  Divinity,  1  am  fully  aware.  I  am  also  aware  that  great  pains 
have  been  taken  to  neutraliz  i  and  destroy  his  influence.  And  allow  me  to  ask, 
whether  no '-other  forces,"  but  those  of  "truth  and  argument,"  have  been 
brought  to  bear  on  this  result  ?  Have  not  opprobrious  epithets  been  employed 
to  stigmatize  his  character?  Has  it  not  been  asserted  in  the  public  prints, 
that  "Nettleton  and  a  few  others  must  bear  the  sin  and  shame  of  what  would 
have  disgraced  any  age  of  papal  power  and  bigotry  ?"  Has  not  he  been 
called  by  grave  divines,  '•  a  heresy  hunter,"  —  "  a  busy  body,"  —  "a  mischief 
maker,"  —  "a  gossip  ?"  Has  not  the  story  been  circulated  from  one  end  of  the 
land  to  the  other,  that,  "  he  has  lost  his  mind,"  and  is  "partially  deranged?" 
(strange  that  such  a  man  should  exert  such  a  powerful  and  extensive  influence  !) 
To  deter  him  from  expressing  his  honest  convictions,  has  he  not  been  plied 
with  flattery  and  with  threats  ?     Did  not  a  gentleman  tell  him  to  his  face  in 

1829,  " and  I  have  made  you  what  you  are,  and  if  you  do  not  behave 

yourself,  we  will  hew  you  down  ?"  And  did  not  that  gentleman  mention  this 
threat  to  the  one  whom  he  associated  with  himself,  and  did  not  the  latter 
gentlempn  mention  it  to  Dr.  Plummcr,  of  Virginia,  and  thus  make  it  public, 
when  Dr.  Nettleton  had  never  mentioned  it  even  to  his  most  intimate  friends  ? 
Did  not  the  former  gentleman  also  mention  this  threat  to  a  clergyman  now 
residing  is  New  Hampshire,  who  informed  a  minister  of  this  State  of  the  fact 
not  long  since  ?  Is  it  not  true,  that  from  that  time  to  the  present,  stories  have 
been  industriously  circulated  in  every  quarter,  injurious  to  the  reputation  of 
Dr.  Nettleton?  Do  you  not  know,  Sir,  that  at  the  time  of  the  meeting  of  the 
General  Association  in  Enfield,  in  1835.  a  gentleman  said  in  the  house  of  the 
late  Mr.  Dixon,  that  "  Mr.  Nettleton  had  forsaken  his  calling,  and  that  God 
had  forsaken  him?  and  that  "he  lutd  done  nothing  but  mischief  for  the.  last  ten 
years  V  And  do  you  n  )t  know,  that  use  was  made  of  this  identical  language, 
and  that  there  is  abundant  proof  of  the  fact  which  can  be  adduced?  Now  I 
ask,  has  Dr.  Nettleton  done  any  thing  like  this  to  oppose  the  influence  of"  the 
men  who  took  him  by  the  hand, and  helped  him  to  rise?"  Has  he  threatened 
to  "hew  them  down  .'*'  lias  he  declared  in  the  public  prints,  that  they'-  must 
bear  the  sin  and  shame  of  what  would  have  disgraced  any  age  of  papal  power 
and  bigotry  V  Has  he  spread  far  and  wide  the  report  that  they  "  have  lost 
their  minds,"  and  "  are  partially  deranged  ?"  Has  he  applied  to  them  low  and 
degrading  epithets?  Has  he  asserted  that  they  "  have  forsaken  their  calling, 
and  that  God  has  forsaken  them,"  and  that  for  a  course  of  years  they  '•  have 
done  nothing  but  mischief?"  I  ask  you,  has  Dr.  Nettleton  done  any  thing  like 
this  I  —  any  thing  to  be  compared  with  it  ? 

Allow  me  to  call  your  attention  a  moment  to  the  ten  years,  during  which 
it  was  affirmed,  that  Dr.  Nettleton  had  done  nothing  but  mischief;  — that  is, 
from  1825,  to  1835.  Arc  you  acquainted  with  his  history  during  that  period? 
Perhaps  I  can  inform  you  of  some  facts,  a  knowledge  of  which  you  do  not 
now  possess.  I  have  already  mentioned,  that  in  1822,  Dr.  Nettleton  was 
brought  to  the  borders  of  the  grave  by  typhus  fever.    From  that  sickness 


CO  LETTERS    TO    THE 

he  has  never  recovered,  so  as  to  enjoy  sound  health  for  a  single  day.  Much 
of  the  time  he  has  been  unable  to  labor  at  all.  Some  part  of  the  time  he  has 
been  able  to  preach  only  once  on  the  Sabbath,  and  to  perform  very  little 
extra  labor.  At  no  time  has  he  been  able  to  engage  in  a  systematic  course 
of  labor,  such  as  he  pursued  during  the  first  ten  years  of  his  ministry,  even 
for  a  week,  without  entirely  prostrating  him.  Yet  feeble  as  he  was  during 
the  period  which  has  been  specified,  he  was  not  altogether  idle,  and  whether 
he  was  forsaken  of  God  you  may  judge  after  considering  the  following  facts. 
In  1825  there  was  a  very  interesting  revival  under  his  preaching,  in  two 
parishes,  in  Taunton,  Ms.  In  1826  his  labors  were  greatly  blessed  in  Jamaica, 
L.  I.,  and  the  vicinity.  In  1827  he  labored  successfully  in  Albany  Durham, 
and  Lexington,  N.  Y.  In  1828  and  1829,  his  labors  were  greatly  blessed  in 
Virginia,  and  some  other  parts  of  the  Southern  States.  During'his  labors  in 
Virginia  Dr.  John  H.  Rice,  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  Alexander,  speaks  of  him  and 

the  revival  as  follows: "When  Mr.  Nettle  ton  had  strength  to  labor,  he 

soon  was  made  instrumental  in  producing  a  considerable  excitement.  This 
has  extended  ;  and  now  the  state  of  things  is  deeply  interesting.  Five  law- 
yers, all  of  very  considerable  standing,  have  embraced  religion.  *  *  * 
This  has  produced  a  mighty  sensation  in  Charlotte,  Mecklenburg,  Nottoway, 
Cumberland,  Powhatan,  Buckingham,  and  Albemarle.  The  minds  of  men 
seem  to  stand  a  tiptoe,  and  they  seem  to  be  looking  for  some  great  thing." 
"  Mr.  Nettleton  is  a  remarkable  man,  and  chiefly,  I  think,  remarkable  for  his 
power  of  producing  a  great  excitement  without  much  appearance  of  feeling. 
The  people  do  not  either  weep,  or  talk  away  there  impressions.  The  preacher 
chiefly  addresses  Bible  truth  to  their  consciences.  I  have  not  heard  him  utter 
as  yet  a  single  sentiment  opposed  to  what  you  and  I  call  orthodoxy.  He 
preaches  the  Bible.  He  derives  his  illustrations  from  the  Bible."  In  1829, 
also,  a  great  revival  commenced  under  his  preaching  in  Monson,  Mass.  In 
the  winter  of  1830  and  31,  he  labored  for  a  considerable  time  in  an  interesting 
revival  with  the  Rev.  Baxter  Dickinson,  in  Newark,  N.  J.,  and  for  some  time 
with  Doctor  Snodgrass  and  Dr.  Spring  in  the  city  of  New  York.  In  1831, 
in  very  feeble  health,  he  took  a  voyage  to  Europe.  While  in  England,  which 
was  a  little  more  than  a  year,  he  preached  in  various  places,  and  not  without 
some  success.  Since  his  return  he  has  received  letters  from  not  a  few  who 
were  awakened  by  his  preaching,  and  who  regard  him  as  their  spiritual  father. 
Is  this  true  of  all  American  clergymen  who  have  visited  England  within  the 
last  few  years  ?  In  1833  there  was  an  interesting  revival  under  his  preaching 
in  Enfield,  when  two  members  of  Mr.  Dixon's  family,  in  whose  house  the  above 
declaration  was  made,  became  hopefully  pious.  He  preached,  also,  during 
the  period  of  which  I  have  been  speaking,  with  more  or  less  success,  in  many 
other  places.  And  now,  Sir,  just  look  at  this  brief  and  very  imperfect  sketch. 
Remember,  that  during  this  whole  period,  Dr.  Nettleton  was  in  very  feeble 
health — much  of  the  time  confined  a  portion  of  each  day  to  his  bed — never 
able  to  engage  in  arduous  labor.  And  yet  to  what  minister  in  New  England 
can  you  point  me,  who  was  during  these  ten  years,  instrumental  in  the  con- 
version of  so  many  souls  ?  Now  this  is  the  man  of  whom  in  1835  it  was  said, 
and  you,  Sir,  know  by  whom  it  was  said,  that  "  he  had  mistaken  his  calling, 
and  that  God  had  forsaken  him,"  and  that  he  had  done  nothing  but  mischief 
for  the  last  ten  years."  This  was  surely  "  speaking  harshly,"  and  it  was 
"judging  unkindly."  My  brother,  no  earthly  consideration  would  have  indu- 
ced me  to  make  such  a  declaration. 

But  further.     It  was  during  this  period  of  ten  years,  that  Dr.  Nettleton 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  ttl 

breasted  the  storm  of  "new  measures"  which  was  coming  in  from  the  west 
He  took  a  stand  against  Mr.  Finney  and  his  supporters.  In  1827  he  publish- 
ed his  review  of  Mr.  Finney's  Sermon,  and  his  letter  to  Mr.  Aikin,  and  in  oth- 
er ways  did  ail  in  his  power  to  check  the  spirit  of  fanaticism,  which  was  com- 
ing in  like  a  flood.  In  all  this,  I  am  aware,  some  supposed  he  was  doing  noth- 
ing but  mischief.  When  it  was  found  that  his  name  could  not  be  used  to  sanc- 
tion M  new  measures,"  the  most  unwearied  pains  were  taken  to  destroy  his 
reputation.  "  All  their  remarks,"  said  a  distinguished  divine,  "  are  brought  to 
a  focus  in  the  spirit  of  unrelenting  hostility  which  is  directed  against  Nettle- 
ton,  and  which,  as  I  know,  will  destroy  or  neutralize  his  influence  if  it  can." 
Some  of  the  same  stories  were  circulated  about  him,  that  are  circulated  now. 
It  was  said,  "  he  has  lost  his  mind" — "  he  is  not  the  man  he  once  was" — "  his 
character  has  sunk  wonderfully" — "  he  is  under  the  frown  of  God,"  *kc.  &c. 
I  know  not,  Sir,  but  you  at  that  time  sympathized  with  his  opposers,  and  ver- 
ily thought  he  was  doing  nothing  but  mischief.  But  there  were  those  who 
entertained  a  different  opinion,  some  of  whom,  at  least,  I  trust  you  would  not 
be  willing  to  treat  with  disrespect. 

The  following  testimonial  was  published  in  the  New  York  Observer : 

"  Boston,  November  8,  1827. 
"  It  having  been  represented  to  some  of  the  subscribers,  that  we  disapproved  of  the  procceed. 
inge  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Nettleton,  in  reviewing  a  sermon  preached  at  Troy,  March  4th  1827,  and 
in  opposing  the  sentiments  and  practices  which  it  seemed  intended  to  vindicate  and  extend,  we 
regard  ourselves  as  called  upon  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  say,  that  the  proceedings  of  Mr.  Nettleton 
appear  to  us  to  have  been  characterized  with  great  intellectual  vigor,  correct  and  comprehensive 
views  of  the  interests  of  the  church,  and  by  distinguished  wisdom,  fidelity,  firmness  and  benevo: 
lence,  well  adapted  to  promote  the  interests  of  pure  religion  throughout  the  land." 
Signed, 

Lyman  Beeciier,         Wm.  R.  Weeks,         Justin  Edwards,         C.  J.  Tenney. 
A.  S.  Norton,  H.  R.  Weed,  Heman  Humphrey,      J.  Hawes. 

My  dear  Sir,  I  do  not  claim  that  Dr.  Nettleton  is  faultless.  He  is  a  man. 
And  no  man  is  without  his  failings.  But  I  do  regard  him  as  eminently  a  wise, 
prudent,  conscientious  and  devoted  servant  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  I  cannot 
but  think,  that  upon  mature  deliberation,  you  will  most  deeply  regret  what 
you  have  written  and  spoken  against  him. 

Your  friend  and  brother, 

GEORGE  A.  CALHOUN. 
Coventry,  January  17,  1840. 


Hettcr  XX. 

Dear  Sir —  After  my  eighth  letter  had  been  sent  to  the  Record,  I  received 
a  note  from  the  Editor,  giving  me  to  understand,  that  impatience  had  been 
manifested  among  some  of  his  subscribers,  on  account  of  the  length  to  which 
the  correspondence  had  been  protracted,  and  requesting  me  to  bring  it  to  a 
close  on  my  part,  as  soon  as  I  could  "consistently  with  doing  justice  to  (my) 
cause,  and  with  answering  all  the  questions  which  (you)  would  expect  (me)  to 
reply  to."  I  immediately  informed  him,  that  I  had  designed  to  add  to  my 
series  of  letters  four  more,  making  twelve  in  all ;  but,  that  I  would,  if  possible, 
in  accommodation  to  his  wishes,  finish  with  the  addition  of  two.  In  a  few 
days  I  received  from  him  another  letter,  in  which  he  said,  "  We  have  heard  so 
much  complaint  from  our  subscribers,  that  my  friends  think  it  will  cause  a  con- 
siderable diminution  of  our  subscription  list,  to  have   your  series  proceed 


62  LETTERS    TO    THE 

further.  I  regret  I  did  not  forsee  how  it  would  be,  so  as  to  give  you  earlier 
notice."  In  the  same  letter  he  stated,  "  It  has  been  suggested,  that  an  extra 
sheet  might  be  printed  for  you,  if  you  will  be  responsible  for  the  expense,  which 
could  be  sent  to  all  our  subscribers,  and  to  whomsoever  else  you  might  wish." 
I  declined  this  proposal,  on  the  ground,  that  if  the  remaining  letters  were 
printed  entirely  at  my  expense.  I  should  choose  to  consult  my  own  convenience 
as  to  the  place  and  manner  of  their  publication.  I  accordingly  requested  the 
Editor  to  inform  his  readers,  that  it  was  at  his  own  direction  my  letters  were  dis- 
continued in  that,  paper,  and  that  they  might  possibly  receive  them  through 
another  medium  of  communication.  I,  at  the  same  time,  requested  him  to  ac- 
commodate me,  at  my  expense,  with  the  names  and  residences  of  those  persons 
to  whom  your  letters  had  been  sent.  After  a  considerable  time,  I  received 
another  letter  from  the  Editor,  in  which,  after  giving  an  account  of  the  "  loud 
and  alarming  complaints,"  which  my  letters  had  occasioned,  he  said,  "  After 
having  considered  the  matter,  and  consulted  with  others,  I  have  concluded,  if 
you  will  forward  the  two  last  letters  as  you  propose,  making  them  as  brief  as 
possible,  to  have  them  published,  and  distributed."  He  said  also,  "As  I  may 
think  it  best  to  issue  the  letters  in  an  extra,  at  my  individual  expense,  I  shall 
be  obliged  to  you  to  make  them  as  brief  as  possible."  To  this  proposition,  I 
could  not  accede  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  I  did  not  wish  to  be  restricted  to  two  short  letters. 

2.  I  had  not  obtruded  myself  upon  the  Record,  and  I  was  not  willing  to 
occupy  its  columns  any  longer  than  my  communications  were  admitted 
readily  and  cheerfully  ;  and  especially,  after  having  been  given  to  understand, 
that  they  were  exceedingly  wounding,  causing  "  loud  and  alarming  complaints," 
and  threatening  seriously  to  injure  the  interests  of  the  paper.  It  seemed  to  me, 
that  no  man  of  any  delicacy  of  feeling,  or  sense  of  propriety,  would  be  willing 
to  write  for  a  paper  under  such  circumstances. 

3.  I  could  by  no  means  consent  to  subject  the  Editor  to  the  trouble  and 
expense  of  publishing  an  extra  sheet  solely  for  my  accommodation. 

I  have  deemed  it  proper  to  state  the  foregoing  facts  and  reasons,  that  the 
readers  of  our  correspondence  may  understand  why  this  and  the  following 
letters  have  not  appeared,  like  the  preceding  ones,  in  the  New-Haven  Record. 

I  design,  Sir,  to  answer  directly  or  indirectly  your  questions  respecting  the 
organization  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  and  the  founding  of  the  Theological  Insti- 
tute of  Connecticut ;  and  I  indulge  the  hope,  that  my  answers  will  be  in  a  good 
degree  satisfactory ;  at  least,  that  they  will  correct  some  of  your  misappre- 
hensions, and  lead  you  to  think  more  favorably  of  the  conduct  of  your  orthodox 
brethren,  than  you  have  done  for  years  past.  You  are  aware,  that  an  intel- 
ligent judgment  cannot  be  passed  upon  their  proceedings  in  associating  together 
and  in  establishing  a  new  theological  seminary,  without  first  considering  the 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed.  That  mistakes  may  be  corrected, 
and  the  condition  of  our  ecclesiastical  commonwealth  rightly  understood,  allow 
me  to  call  your  attention,  for  a  short  time,  from  the  Pastoral  Union  and 
Theological  Institute  of  Connecticut,  and  to  occupy  it  with  some  other  topics 
which  are  intimately  connected  with  the  professed  object  of  this  discussion. 

1.  The  Theological  Department  of  Yale  College  demands  our  consideration. 
If  I  am  correctly  informed,  the  first  indications,  discovered  only  by  a  few 
persons,  that  the  New-Haven  divines  were  beginning  to  adopt  opinions  at 
variance  with  those  which  commonly  prevailed  among  the  orthodox,  appeared 
in  1820,  '21  ;  and  the  project  of  reorganizing  and  enlarging  the  Theological 


REV.    LEONARD    B&COIf.  G3 

Department  of  Yale  College  wot  started  in  May,  1S22.  You  say,  "  The 
course  taken  by  the  Corporation  of  Yale  College,  twelve  years  before  [the 
fhstitute  was  founded]  when  the  Theological  Department  of  that  institution 
was  reorganized  and  placed  upon  its  present  footing,  was  referred  to  [at 
Vernon.]  as  showing  what  might  have  been  expected  in  a  parallel  case  ;  the 
corporation,  before  proceeding  to  any  decisive  measures,  brought  the  proposal 
not  only  to  the  General  Association,  but  to  every  one  of  the  District  Associa- 
tions, for  advice  and  approval,  and  waited  till  the  churches  through  their 
pastors  had  given  their  approbation  to  the  proposed  arrangement."  That  this 
subject  was  brought  before  our  associations,  I  do  not  doubt;  but  that  ''the 
corporation  waited  till  the  churches,  through  their  pastors,  had  given  their 
approbation  of  the  proposed  arrangement,"  is  not  so  evident. 

Are  you  quite  sure,  that  the  Corporation  of  Yale  College  brought  this  subject 
before  the  Associations,  or  that  the  Associations  would  have  approved  of 
the  plan,  had  they  known  what  theological  sentiments  would  be  inculcated  in 
that  department?  Could  they  have  foreseen  what  has  taken  place,  I  do  not 
believe  an  Association  in  the  State  would,  at  that  time,  have  sanctioned  the 
procedure.  You,  doubtless,  believe,  that  this  subject  was  brought  before  the 
Associations  by  the  Corporation,  and  I  will  not  say  that  it  was  not ;  but  I  have 
before  me  a  certified  copy  of  the  document  which  was  sent  to  the  Associations, 
and  in  answer  to  which  they  communicated  their  views  respecting  the  proposal. 
This  document  is  dated  at  Yale  College,  May  G,  1822  ;  but  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  prepared,  or  forwarded,  in  the  name,  or  by  the  authority,  of  the 
Corporation  of  Yale  College.  It  has  attached  to  it  no  name.  And  do  the 
Corporation,  when  they  submit  proposals  to  clerical  bodies,  and  "  wait  till  the 
churches  through  their  pastors  have  given  their  approbation,"  send  anonymous 
communications  ?*  Was  not  this  application  to  the  Associations  "for  advice 
and  approval,"  made  by  gentlemen  at  New-Haven,  some  of  whom,  at  least, 
are  now  connected  with  the  Theological  Department  of  Yale  College  ;  and 
made,  too,  before  the  Corporation  had  acted  on  the  subject  of  re-organizing 
and  enlarging  the  Theological  Department  of  that  institution  ?  And  was  not 
the  duty  of  approving  of  this  design,  in  personal  address,  urged  upon  one  or 
more  of  the  Associations,  by  one  or  more  of  those  gentlemen  1  Permit  me  to 
quote  a  few  extracts  from  the  document  referred  to  :  — 

"  In  soliciting  the  co-operation  of  the  clergy  and  the  donations  of  the  religious  public  for  the 
accomplishment  of  this  great  design,  it  is  thought  proper  respectfully  to  state  some  of  the  reasons 
which  demand  its  adoption."  —  "  1.  The  primary  design  of  the  College  deserves  consideration." 
— "  2.  The  continuance  of  the  Theological  Department  on  an  enlarged  scale  cannot  interfere  with 
existing  Theological  Institutions."  —  "  Winn  it  is  considered,  that  most  of  the  literary  institu- 
tions of  our  country  are  in  New  England,  that  here  revivals  of  religion  arc  placing  increasing 
multitudes  of  youth  at  the  disposal  of  the  churches,  that  all  other  parts  of  the  United  States  are 
looking  to  us  as  the  Seminary  >■(  the  churches  in  the  country,  it  will  not  be  thought  too  strong 
to  am/in,  that  one  011  twj  Theological  Institutions  cannot  long  be  adequate  to  the  just 
demands  of  Providence  on  the  piktv  and  talents  of  New  England.  Nor  finally  will  this 
Department  interfere  at  all  with  the  funds  of  other  Institutions.  For  as  to  students,  an  increase 
of  their  number  in  charity  students,  is  but  a  consumption  of  their  funds,  and  in  other  btudents  is 
but  a  bare  repayment  of  expenses ;  and  as  to  the  community,  they  look  to  a  different  portion  of  it 
for  pecuniary  aid  from  that  on  which  ice  must  rely  for  the  extension  and  support  of  this  Depart- 
ment." 3.  The  facilities  for  supporting  a  Theological  Department  in  Yale  College  are  deserving 
of  consideration."  "4.  The  literary  and  moral  iurluenco  of  a  Theological  school  will  be  highly 
salutary  on  the  undergraduates." 


•  The  Rev.  Dr.  Chapin  in  reply  to  an  inquiry  of  mine  on  this  subject,  writes  as  follows  :  — 
"  Anonymous  communications  by  the  Corporation  of  Yale  College  ! ! !  I  know  not  but  they  havs 
sent  a  million  —  but  I  do  not  believe  they  have  sent  odc.     Why  should  they  ?  " 


64  LETTERS    TO    THE 

Now,  by  whomsoever  this  application  to  the  Associations  was  made,  what 
was  its  design,  and  what  responsiilibties  did  the  Associations  assume  in  approv- 
ing of  the  proposed  arrangement  ?  It  has  been  more  than  once  intimated,  that 
the  Theological  Department  in  Yale  College  was  the  legitimate  child  of  the 
Associations,  and  that  they  were  bound  to  support  it ;  and  as  the  Theological 
Institute  of  Connecticut  was  founded  without  the  formal  approval  of  the 
Associations,  though  a  number  of  them  unsolicited  passed  resolutions  in  its 
commendation  after  it  was  established,  it  has  been  said  that  it  ought  not  to  be 
respectfully  noticed  by  those  bodies,  and  that  its  founders  should  be  considered 
as  having  acted  a  disorderly  part.  What  then  was  the  object  of  those,  who, 
in  an  anonymous  communication,  appealed  to  the  Associations  in  behalf  of  the 
Theological  Department  in  Yale  College,  in  making  the  appeal  ?  Was  it  to 
make  the  Department  a  child  of  the  Associations,  to  put  it  under  their  super- 
vision and  control,  and  to  have  them  responsible  to  the  public  for  its  manage- 
ment ?  Nothing  like  this  is  intimated  in  their  communication.  "  In  soliciting 
the  co-operation  of  the  clergy  and  the  donations  of  the  religious  public  [they] 
thought  proper  respectfully  to  state  some  reasons  which  demand  its  adoption." 
Does  it  not  appear,  that  the  simple  and  only  object  was  to  secure  the  influence 
"  of  the  clergy  and  the  donations  of  the  religious  public,  in  re-organizing  and 
enlarging  that  department,"  to  be  entirely  independent  of  the  pastors  and 
churches  of  this  State  ?  I  ask  you,  Sir,  as  a  member  of  the  Corporation  of 
Yale  College,  could  the  Corporation  themselves  have  proposed  to  the  Associ- 
ations to  take  this  theological  school  under  their  supervision  and  control  ?  Is 
not  all  authority  which  can  be  exercised  over  it  in  the  possession  of  the  Cor- 
poration? And  are  they  not  bound  by  law  to  retain  that  authority  in  their 
own  possession  1  Can  they  delegate  any  measure  of  power  to  individuals  or 
associations  to  act  in  relation  to  that  concern  ?  What  then  have  the  pastors 
and  churches  of  Connecticut  to  do  with  the  Theological  Department  in  Yale 
College  ?  Can  they  by  authoritative  action  exert  the  least  influence  in  the 
management  of  its  affairs'?  Have  the  Associations,  or  Consociations,  of  this 
State  ever  been,  at  least  in  our  day,  consulted  by  the  Corporation  relative  to 
the  appointment  of  professors,  or  respecting  any  other  transactions  of  that 
board  ?  Did  the  Corporation  ever  submit  to  the  consideration  of  the  churches, 
or  pastors  of  the  churches  an  official  report  of  their  proceedings  ?  And  do 
you  believe  that  the  Associations,  in  approving  of  the  establishment  of  that 
school,  thought  of  binding  themselves  and  successors  to  sustain  it  at  all  events  ? 
Perhaps  two-thirds  or  more  of  the  present  pastors  of  our  churches  have  been 
settled  since  1822,  when  this  application  was  made,  and  know  nothing  of  the 
"  advice  and  approval "  of  which  you  speak  ;  and  are  they  obligated  to  cast 
out,  as  illegitimate  offspring,  all  other  theological  institutions  and  cleave  to  that 
of  Yale  College  as  the  only  child  of  promise  ?  No,  Sir.  The  Theological 
Department  in  Yale  College  is  not  so  much  the  child  of  the  Associations,  as  is 
the  Theological  Institute.  The  former  is  under  the  exclusive  control  of  a 
Corporation  composed  of  eight  officers  of  our  State  government,  and  ten 
clergymen  invested  with  power  to  fill  all  vacancies  in  the  clerical  part  of  the 
body  ;  the  latter  is  the  property  and  under  the  control  of  a  large  proportion 
of  the  pastors  of  our  churches  and  members  of  our  Associations  who  annually 
appoint  the  trustees  of  the  Institute  ;  the  former  is  allied  to  the  State ;  the 
latter  is  closely  allied  to  the  churches. 

Yale  College  has  ever  been  a  favorite  object  with  the  Congregational 
ministers  of  Connecticut.  They  founded  it  and  they  have  patronized  it  as 
their  own  institution.     And,  so  far  as  I  know,  as  a  literary  institution,  it  is  still 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  65 

dear  to  them ;  and  to  none  is  it  more  so,  than  to  members  of  the  Pastoral 
Union.  The  ministers  of  this  State,  you  will  cheerfully  acknowledge,  have 
afforded  important  aid  in  roaring  that  seminary  to  the  elevated  station  which 
it  now  occupies  among  the  literary  institutions  of  the  country.  Its  influence 
is  felt  in  every  city,  town,  village,  hamlet,  and  sequestered  neighborhood  in 
Connecticut,  and  extensively  in  other  parts  of  the  land.  The  man  who 
can  avail  himself  of  this  influence,  may  increase  an  hundred  fold  his  power  of 
controling  the  views  and  feelings  of  the  community.  Universities  in  Europe, 
with  one,  at  least,  in  this  country,  as  they  have  been  the  means  of  corrupting 
churches,  and  of  spreading  moral  desolations  around  them,  solemnly  admonish 
us,  that  a  few  men,  aided  by  the  influence  of  such  an  institution  as  Yale 
College,  in  connection  with  the  press,  can  easily  revolutionize  the  theological 
sentiments  of  an  extensive  region,  unless  they  are  openly,  boldly,  persevenngly, 
and  with  a  spirit  of  self-denial  opposed.  And  now,  Sir,  is  it  to  you  surprising, 
that  when  the  Theological  Department  in  Yale  College  was  put  into  operation, 
and  strange  doctrines  came  from  it  to  the  ears  of  the  religious  public,  that 
many  intelligent  persons  were  alarmed  and  filled  with  anxiety?  And,  if  there 
teas  no  design  to  change  the  features  of  our  New  England  orthodoxy,  and  if  in 
the  opinion  of  the  New-Haven  divines,  there  was  no  great  difference  in  the  theo- 
logical views  between  them  and  their  brethren,  would  not  effectual  measures  have 
been  adopted,  by  the  appointment  of  Professors,  or  otherwise,  to  diminish,  if  not 
to  remove  entirely  all  occasion  of  solicitude  ?  But  allow  me  to  ask  the  following 
questions,  with  an  earnest  request  that  you  will,  if  possible,  give  satisfactory 
answers. 

"  When  the  Theological  Department  was  re-organized  and  put  upon  its 
present  footing;'  were  not  its  Professors  on  the  side  of  what  has  been  denom- 
inated "  new  divinity  ?"  Have  not  all  the  gentlemen  who  have  been  elected 
Professors  in  that  Department  since  its  re-organization,  been  of  the  same  type 
in  theology,  and  disposed  to  cast  their  influence  on  that  side  ?  Has  not  that 
theological  school  been  made  a  powerful  engine  in  promulgating  the  peculiar 
sentiments  of  the  New-Haven  divines  ?  For  years  past,  has  any  gentlemen 
been  elected  a  clerical  member  of  the  Corporation,  who  did  not  favor  those  senti- 
ments ?  Can  any  minister,  who  is  conscientiously  and  openly  opposed  to  the 
peculiar  views  of  the  New-Haven  divines,  be  considered  a  candidate  for 
membership  in  the  Corporation,  or  for  office  in  the  Theological  Department  ? 
What  safeguard  have  the  public  on  this  subject  ?  Be  not  displeased,  my 
brother,  that  in  your  own  language  I  interrogate  still  farther.  What  is  this 
Theological  Department  ?  "Is  it  not  an  organization  ? —  the  organization  of 
a  party  ?  —  organized  for  party  ends  ?  —  organized  to  accomplish  ends  to 
which  mere  argument  was  inadequate,  and  which  could  not  be  reached  by  the 
working  of  our  ecclesiastical  system  ?"  And  since  your  brethren  of  the 
Pastoral  Union  did  suppose,  that  they  and  all  who  harmonize  with  them  in 
their  views  of  divine  truth,  were  effectually  excluded  from  all  participation  in 
the  management  of  that  seminary,  and  that  they  were  driven  to  the  painful 
necessity  of  providing  for  themselves  ;  have  they  indeed  committed  a  great 
offence  in  establishing  a  new  theological  institution,  as  they  believe,  on  better 
principles,  with  an  improved  organization,  and  far  more  congenial  to  the  spirit 
of  Congregationalism. 

2.  The  subject  of  creeds  deserves  consideration.  — In  your  second  letter  you 
say ;  "  The  convention  at  East  Windsor  adopted  a  new  confession  of  faith,  now 
known  as  the  creed  of  the  Pastoral  Union.     If  any  convention,  or  permanent 
9 


CQ  LETTERS    TO    THE 

society  of  ministers  on  the  other  side  of  this  controversy,  had  formed  a  new 
confession  of  faith,  how  many  inferences  unfavorable  to  their  orthodoxy  would 
have  been  derived  from  the  fact ;  and  how  would  the  fact  with  the  inferences 
have  been  proclaimed  throughout  the  land.  I  will  not  attempt  to  derive  from 
your  new  confession  any  inferences  unfavorable  to  your  orthodoxy.  I  will 
only  ask  you  to  inform  the  public  why  a  new  confession  was  thought  necessary  ? 
The  attempt  has  been  made  of  late,  you  know,  by  some  of  your  associates,  to 
produce  the  impression  on  the  public  mind,  that  the  Savoy  Confession,  assented 
to  by  the  Synod  at  Saybrook  in  1708,  is  now  the  standard  of  orthodoxy  among 
us  ;  and  that^t  is  to  be  taken,  not  as  embodying  a  certain  '  system  of  doctrine/ 
but  as  binding  in  every  word.  I  do  not  impute  that  notion  to  you,  for  I  have 
heard  you  declare  publicly  the  contrary ;  but  I  may  ask  you,  whether  those 
who  co-operated  in  forming  this  new  confession,  and  in  making  it  the  basis  of 
the  Pastoral  Union,  did  not  at  the  time  take  the  same  ground  which  you  take  1 
Why  a  new  creed,  if  the  Savoy  Confession  is  our  standard  ?  —  Perhaps  it  will 
not  be  thought  impertinent  if  I  ask,  in  what  respect  the  new  creed  is  better 
than  the  Shorter  Catechism  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  that  old  and  familiar 
summary  of  Christian  doctrine.  It  is  shorter  than  the  Catechism,  and  in  that 
respect  it  is  better,  if  it  is  to  be  imposed,  as  a  creed,  word  for  word,  upon 
posterity.  It  is  a  very  respectable  formulary,  one  which,  if  I  understand  it 
aright,  I  should  be  ready  to  subscribe ;  but  wherever  it  differs  from  the 
Catechism  either  in  arrangement  or  in  statement,  I  think  the  Catechism  is  by 
all  means  to  be  preferred." 

"If any  convention  or  permanent  society  of  ministers  on  the  other  side  of 
the  controversy,  had  formed  a  new  confession  of  faith,"  I  do  not  believe,  that 
"  many  inferences  unfavorable  to  their  orthodoxy  would  have  been  derived 
from  the  fact,"  provided  the  confession  was  fully  and  explicitly  orthodox,  and 
its  framers  were  known  to  be  deeply  convinced  of  the  importance  of  maintain- 
ing the  sound  doctrines  which  it  embraced.  Do  you  believe,  Sir,  that 
inferences  unfavorable  to  orthodoxy  would  be  derived  from  an  exchange  of 
creeds,  provided  the  former  were  vague  and  indefinite,  and  the  latter  full 
and  lucid  in  expressing  the  doctrines  of  grace  1  Suppose  the  church  in  Yale 
College  should  become  dissatisfied  with  their  present  "  Confession  of  Faith," 
and  should  exchange  it  for  the  "  Articles  of  Agreement,"  adopted  by  the 
Pastoral  Union  ;  what  inferences  in  relation  to  orthodoxy  would  be  derived 
from  the  fact  ?"  That  you  and  the  reader  may  judge,  allow  me  to  quote  these 
formularies. 

"THE    CONFESSION    OF   FAITH    OF    THE    CHURCH   IN    YALE    COLLEGE. 

You,  [and  each  of  you]  solemnly  profess  your  belief  that  there  is  but  one  God,  in  three  persons, 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  self-existent,  independent,  eternal,  unchangeable  ;  infi- 
nite in  power,  wisdom,  holiness,  goodness,  and  truth :  —  that  by  him  all  things  were  made  ;  and 
are  governed  according  to  his  own  most  wise,  holy  and  good  pleasure  :  and  that  you  arc  his  crea- 
tures, and  under  the  most  righteous  and  solemn  obligations  to  serve  and  glorify  him  with  all  your 
powers  while  you  live.  You  also  profess  your  belief,  that  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  are  the  Word  of  God ;  revealed  to  mankind  by  the  spirit  of  truth ;  and  containing 
every  rule  of  faith,  and  practise  which  is  obligatory  on  the  consciences  of  mankind.  —  Thus  you 
profess  and  believe." 

"  ARTICLES    OF    AGREEMENT   OF   THE    PASTORAL   UNION. 

1.  That  there  is  one,  and  but  one,  living  and  true  God. 

2.  That  the  word  of  God,  contained  in  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  is  the 
only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

3.  That  agreeable  to  these  rcriptures,  God  is  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable  in 
his  being,  wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness  and  truth. 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  C7 

4.  That  in  the  Godhead  there  are  three  persons,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
that  these  three  arj  one  God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory. 

5.  That  God  created  man  after  his  own  image,  consisting  in  knowledge,  righteousness,  and 
holiness. 

6.  That  the  glory  of  God  is  man's  chief  end  and  the  enjoyment  of  God  his  supreme  happi- 
ness. And  that  this  enjoyment  is  derived  solely  from  conformity  of  heart  to  the  moral  character 
and  will  of  God. 

7.  That  God,  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,  hath  foreordained  whatsoever  comes 
to  pass,  and  that  all  beings,  actions,  and  events,  both  in  the  natural  and  moral  worlds,  are  subject 
to  his  providential  direction  ;  and  that  God's  purposes  perfectly  consist  with  human  liberty,  God's 
universal  agency  with  the  agency  of  man,  and  man's  dependence  with  his  accountability ;  that 
man  has  understanding  and  natural  strength  to  do  all  tiiat  God  requires  of  him,  so  that  nothing 
but  the  sinner's  aversion  to  holiness  prevents  his  salvation. 

8.  That  it  is  the  prerogative  of  God  to  bring  good  out  of  evil,  and  that  he  will  cause  the 
wrath  of  men  and  devils  to  praise  him,  ant!  that  al!  the  evil  which  has  existed,  and  will  forever 
exist  in  the  universe,  will  eventually  be  made  to  promote  a  most  important  purpose,  under  the 
wise  and  perfect  administration  of  that  Almighty  Being  who  will  cause  all  things  to  work  for  his 
own  glory,  and  thus  fulfil  all  his  pleasure. 

9.  That  Adam  the  federal  head  and  representative  of  the  human  race,  was  placed  in  proba- 
tion, that  he  disobeyed  the  divine  command,  fell  from  holiness,  and  involved  himself  and  al!  his 
posterity  in  depravity  and  ruin.  And  that  from  the  commencement  of  existence,  every  man  is 
personally  depraved,  destitute  of  holiness,  unlike  and  opposed  to  God,  and  that,  previously  to  his 
renewal  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  all  his  moral  actions  are  adverse  to  the  character  and  gloiy  of  God  ; 
and  that,  having  the  carnal  mind,  which  is  enmity  against  God,  he  is  justly  exposed  to  all  the 
miseries  of  this  life,  and  to  eternal  damnation. 

10.  That  sin  consists  in  the  moral  corruption  of  the  heart,  the  perversencss  of  the  will,  and 
actual  transgressions  of  the  divine  law. 

11.  That  God  from  eternity,  elected  some  of  our  fallen  race  to  everlasting  life,  through  sancti- 
fication  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth,  not  for  any  foreseen  faith  or  obedience  in  the  subject 
of  election,  but  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure. 

12.  That  the  only  Redeemer  of  the  elect  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  being  God,  became 
man,  and  continues  to  be  both  God  and  man,  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person  furevcr. 

13.  That  except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  that  repentance, 
faith,  and  holiness  are  the  personal  requisites  of  salvation  in  the  Gospel  scheme;  that  the  right- 
eousnes  of  Christ  is  the  only  ground  of  the  sinner's  justification  ;  that  this  righteousness  is  receiv- 
ed by  faith,  and  that  this  faith  is  the  gift  of  God  ;  so  that  our  salvation  is  wholly  of  grace  ;  that 
no  means  whatever  can  change  the  heart  of  a  sinner  and  make  it  holy  ;  that  regeneration  and 
sanctification  are  the  effects  of  the  creating  and  renewing  agency  of  the  Holy  .Spirit ;  and  that 
supreme  love  to  God  constitutes  the  essential  difference  between  saints  and  sinners. 

14.  That  the  atonement  made  by  Christ,  in  his  obedience  and  death,  is  the  only  ground  of 
pardon  and  salvation  to  sinners,  and  that  this  ground  is  sufficiently  broad  for  the  offer  of  pardon 
to  be  sincerely  made  to  all  men. 

15.  That  as  it  pleased  God  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching,  to  save  them  that  believe,  the 
gospel  is  adapted  to  the  moral  agency  and  the  wants  of  sinners,  but  not  conformable  to  their 
dispositions,  and  that  the  object  of  preaching  the  Gospel  is  to  display  the  glory  of  God  in  tho 
redemption  of  sinners. 

1G.     That  all  true  believers  arc  kept,  by  tl.c  power  of  God,  through  faith  unto  salvation. 

17.  That  the  special  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  Baptism  ai:d  the  Lord's  Suppi  r,  are  designed 
for  those  onlv  who  make  a  credible  profession  of  their  faith  in  Christ,  and  unite  themselves  to 
his  visible  church  ;  and  that  professing  believers,  who  have  households,  are  to  bring  them  also  to 
the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

18.  That  a  Christian  Church  ought  to  admit  no  person  to  its  holy  communion,  before  he  has 
time  to  exhibit,  by  hi*  fruits,  credible  evidence  of  h;s  pi< 

19.  That  there  will  be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just  and  of  the  unjust,  and  that 
all  must  stand  before  the  judgement-seat  of  Christ,  to  give  an  account  of  the  deeds  done  in  tho 

body. 

20.  That  the  wicked  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,  but  the  righteous  into  life 
eternal." 

Were  the  Pastoral  Union  to  exchange  these  "  Articles  of  Agreement,"  for 
the  "Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Church  m  Yale  College."  I  do  not  know  but 
there  might  be  inferences  unfavorable  derived  from  the  fact;  but  were  that 
church  to  abandon  their  present  "Confession,"  and  adopt  these  "Articles,"  in 
the  place  of  it,  do  you  really  believe,  that  '•  many  inferences  unfavorable  to 
their  orthodoxy  would  be  proclaimed  throughout  the  land  ?" 


68  LETTERS    TO    THE 

You  request  me  "  to  inform  the  public  why  a  new  Confession  was  thought 
necessary." — Were  a  company  of  professing  Christians  organized  as  a  distinct 
church,  would  it  not  be  singular  to  request  them  "  to  inform  the  public  why  a 
new  Confession  was  thought  necessary  Vs  I  presume  your  brethren  when 
about  to  form  the  Pastoral  Union,  believed  that  agreement  in  sentiment  was 
the  only  stable  bond  of  their  contemplated  association,  and  that  they  owed  it 
to  each  other  and  to  the  Christian  community  to  make  an  explicit  declaration 
in  their  own  language  of  their  views  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel ;  and  espec- 
ially as  they  contemplated  the  establishment  of  a  new  Theological  Seminary. 
Respecting  the  opinions  of  ministers  in  this  State  in  regard  to  the  Savoy 
Confession  being  the  standard  of  orthodoxy  among  us,  1  do  not  know  that  1 
have  any  information  which  you  do  not  possess. 

Since  you,  Sir,  have  introduced  the  subject  of  creeds,  and  have  been  free  in 
your  remarks  respecting  that  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  you  will  allow  me  to  ask, 
now  it  has  happened,  that  writers  of  a  certain  school  have  of  late  years  so 
frequently  assailed  creeds  and  confessions  as  standards  of  orthodoxy  or  guards 
against  error  ?  When  Unitarianism  was  beginning  to  infect  many  of  the 
churches  in  Massachusetts,  creeds  and  confessions,  as  standards  of  orthodoxy, 
or  guards  against  error,  were  represented  as  worse  than  useless.  So  it  has 
been  of  late,  to  some  extent,  among  us.  As  a  specimen  of  what  has  been 
published  on  this  subject,  I  quote  the  following  :  — 

M  Among  the  ordinary  uses  of  creeds  and  confessions,  the  following  may  be  enumerated  : 

1.  They  are  used  as  forms  in  making  a  public  profession  of  faith  in  the  Gospel.  Such  i» 
their  customary  use  in  our  churches ;  and  to  such  a  use,  provided  the  form  is  not  exceptionable, 
I  know  not  how  any  reasonable  man  can  object. 

2.  They  arc  used  as  terms  of  communion  ; — as  when  the  position  is  taken,  no  man  shall  be 
received  into  our  church,  who  will  not  subscribe  or  assent  to  our  formulary.  In  respect  to  this  it 
ought  to  be  remembered  that  no  formulary  which  is  designed  for  such  a  use,  ought  to  include 
any  thing  beyond  those  points,  the  understanding  and  belief  of  which  is  essential  to  a  credible- 
profession  of  Christianity. 

3.  They  arc  used  as  standards  of  orthodoxy  and  guards  against  error,  and  securities  for  uni- 
formity of  belief  in  the  ministry  or  among  churches.  As  to  the  utility  of  creeds,  when  employed 
for  such  a  purpose,  I  must  be  allowed  to  express  a  doubt."  —  "  A  Manual  for  Young  Church 
Members.     By  Leonard  Bacon,  p.  175." 

It  appears,  then,  that  you  would  have  all  our  churches  adopt  confessions  of 
faith  which  would  present  no  barrier  to  membership  to  hopeful  Christians 
whatever  may  be  their  religious  tenets  ;  and  you  would  dispense  with  all 
creeds  as  standards  of  orthodoxy,  or  guards  against  error.  Permit  me  to 
inquire,  whether  it  was  in  conformity  to  these  opinions,  that,  a  few  years  since, 
the  "  Confession  of  Faith,"  adopted  by  the  First  Church  in  New-llaven  was 
exchanged  for  the  present  "  Profession  of  Faith  ?"  That  intelligent  and  highly 
respectable  church  will  not  consider  me,  in  making  this  and  some  other  inquiries, 
impertinent,  inasmuch  as  their  pastor  has  felt  it  his  duty  to  express  his  views 
of  the  creed  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  and  to  propose  questions  in  relation  to  it. 

May  I  not  request  you  "  to  inform  the  public,  why  a  new  confession  was 
thought  necessary."  And  will  you  allow  me  to  ask,  whether  the  present 
"Profession  of  Faith"  of  your  church  is  not  more  in  accordance  with  the 
peculiar  views  of  the  New-Haven  divines  than  the  formulary  for  which  it  was 
exchanged  ?  I  understand,  that  copies  of  this  "  Profession  of  Faith  "  have  been 
extensively  circulated,  that  it  has  already  been  adopted  by  a  number  of 
churches,  and  that  by  a  portion  of  the  religious  community  it  is  considered  a 
specimen  of  what  a  church  creed  should  be.  You  will  hence  permit  me  to 
examine  it  in  connection  with  the  old  confession,  in  some  of  its  particulars. 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON-  69 

Before  the  exchange  alluded  to,  persons  on  making  a  profession  of  religion 
and  uniting  with  your  church,  I  conclude,  publicly  assented  to  the  following 
among  other  declarations. 

"You  believe  —  "that  (God)  preserves  and  governs  all  his  creatures,  and 
overrules  all  their  actions  for  his  own  glory;  and  that  in  whatsoever  comes  to 
pass,  he  is  accomplishing  his  eternal  purposes,  according  to  the  counsel  of  his 
own  will"  Is  not  this  a  direct  contradiction  of  the  theory,  that  God  could  not 
prevent  all  sin,  or  the  present  degree  of  it,  in  a  moral  system  ?  Is  not  this  in 
the  new  "  Profession  of  Faith"  intentionally  evaded  by  saying,  that  God's  "pur- 
poses extend  to  all  events  /"  And  again,  that  "  he  exercises  a  righteous  moral  gov- 
ernment over  all  his  intelligent  creatures!"  And  may  not  a  temporal  king  over 
his  subjects,  or  a  father  over  his  children ;  and  yet  be  defeated,  and  utterly 
unable  to  control  or  govern  their  actions  ? 

"  You  believe  t ha t  (rod  created  nam  upright.11'  The  modern  theory,  if  I  un- 
derstand it,  is,  that  God  cannot  create  holiness, — that  the  image  of  God,  in 
which  Adam  was  created,  means  simply  that,  he  was  constituted  a  moral 
agent, — and  that  holiness  and  sin  are  alike  acquired  ?  Hence  in  the  new  creed, 
it  is  said  ;  "  You  believe  thai  man  was  originally  upright"  How  he  became  so, 
whether  by  his  own,  or  God's  act,  or  both,  or  neither,  we  are  not  told. 

"  You  believe  that  God  in  his  mercy  has  not  left,  all  mankind  to  perish  forever, 
but  out  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  has  from  eternity  elected  some  to  everlasting 
life."  The  doctrine  of  election  from  eternity  is  not  included  in  the  new  "  Pro- 
fession of  Faith  "! 

"  You  believe  that  without  a  change  of  heart,  wrought  in  the  unregenerate  by 
the  special  divine  agency  of  the  Holt/  Spirit,  who  is  very  God,  no  man  can  bean 
heir  of  eternal  life  ;  and  that  the  soul  which,  is  once  made  partaker  of  renewing 
and  saving  grace,  will  never  be  permitted  so  to  fall  away,  as  finally  to  perish" 
The  words  "  dead  in  sin"  and  "  regeneration"  found  in  the  old  confession  are 
omitted  in  the  new.  The  special  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  filial  per- 
severance of  the  saints,  so  clearly  expressed  in  the  "  Confession"  are  neither 
expressed  nor  implied  in  the  "Profession"! 

■  You  believe  that  baptism  is  to  be.  administered  to  unbaptiseel  adults,  wlw pro- 
fess their  faith  in  Christ,  and  to  the.  infant  children  of  any,  who  are  members  of 
the  church."     Infant  baptism  is  omitted  in  the  new  creed  ! 

"  Thus  in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God,  you  solemnly  profess  and  believe." 
"  Perhaps  it  will  not  be  thought  impertinent,  if  I  ask  in  what  respect  the  new 
creed  is  better  than  [the  old  one,  or]  the  Shorter  Catechism  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly,  that  old  and  familiar  summary  of  Christian  Doctrine.  It  is 
shorter  than  the  Catechism,  in  that  respect  it  is  better ;  —  but  wherever  it  dif- 
fers from  the  Catechism  in  arrangement  and  statement,  I  think  lh.3  Catechism 
is  by  all  means  to  be  preferred."  I  doubt  not,  sir,  that  there  are  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  intelligent  members  of  our  churches,  who  would  deeply  regret  to 
have  the  doctrines  above  noticed  expunged  from  the  Confessions  of  Faith  to 
which  they  assented  "in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God."  But  why  this  ex- 
change o(  creeds,  which  has  obtained  of  late  in  some  of  our  churches?  Can 
you  present  a  clearer  evidence  of  a  change  in  theological  views,  than  to  have 
long  established  formularies  set  aside?  In  this,  is  there  not  evidence  of  the 
working  of  an  organization  designed  to  change  the  features  of  our  orthodoxy  ? 
3.  The  eircumslances  and  character  of  our  religious  periodical  press  demand 
consideration.  Seldom  has  there  been  a  large  body  of  clergymen,  who  were 
so  evangelical,  and  so  harmonious  in  their  views  of  divine  truth,  and  in  their 
operations,  as  the  Congregational  ministers  of  Connecticut,  for  a  considerable 


70  LETTERS    TO    THE 

period  before  the  commencement  of  our  present  unhappy  dissensions.  The 
Connecticut  Evangelical  Magazine  first  published  in  1800,  and  the  succession 
of  comparatively  pure  and  powerful  revivals  of  religion,  which  began  about 
the  dawn  of  the  present  century,  together  with  less  prominent  instrumentali- 
ties, were  greatly  blessed  to  the  ministry  and  to  the  churches  of  this  State. 
At  the  time  of  my  ordination,  twenty-one  years  ago,  differences  in  sentiment, 
or  in  practice  among  our  brethren  were  scarcely  known.  When  any  con- 
cern of  a  public  nature  came  before  them,  they  examined  it  faithfully  and  kind- 
ly ;  and  if  it  met  with  their  approval,  for  obvious  reasons  they  committed  it 
principally  to  the  management  of  the  ministers  at  Hartford  and  New  Haven 
as  occupying  central  stations ;  and  cordially  co-operated  with  them.  This  har- 
mony in  views,  and  union  in  efforts,  were  clearly  manifested  in  relation  to  the 
religious  periodical  press.  I  need  not  tell  you.  that  the  first  periodical  of  this 
character  in  the  form  of  a  newspaper  was  the  Religious  Intelligencer,  publish- 
ed in  New  Haven  first  in  1816  ;  that  for  a  number  of  years  it  received  the 
general,  if  not  universal  support  of  the  Congregational  ministers  and  churches 
of  Connecticut;  and  that  for  a  considerable  time  before  it  was  discontinued, 
its  influence  was  decidedly  in  favor  of"  New  Haven  theology."  The  Chris- 
tian Spectator,  a  monthly  publication,  was  first  issued  in  1819.  I  have  always 
supposed,  that  there  was  perfect  harmony  among  the  ministers  of  this  State 
in  originating,  and  in  supporting  it,  till  it  changed  its  theological  character ; 
that,  as  it  was  originally  designed,  to  use  its  own  language,  to  "  inculcate"  what 
"  are  termed  the  doctrines  of  grace  which  have  ever  prevailed  in  the  great 
body  of  the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  churches,"  they  regarded  it  as 
their  own  organ  of  communication  to  the  religious  public  .  and  considered 
themselves  obligated  to  sustain  the  Association  of  Gentlemen  by  whom  it  was 
conducted.  They  patronized  the  work,  as  far  as  practicable  circulated  it 
among  their  people,  and  many  of  them  enriched  its  pages  with  their  produc- 
tions. Often  were  they  applied  to,  as  its  friends  and  supporters,  to  augment 
its  list  of  subscribers.  And  conducted  with  ability  as  it  was,  it  in  process  of 
time  exerted  a  great  influence  on  the  ministry  and  the  churches.  But  as  it 
was  entirely  or  principally  under  the  control  of  gentlemen  at  New  Haven,  they 
improved  it,  and  the  influence  which  it  had  attained,  for  the  promulgation  and 
defence  of  their  peculiar  views  of  theology  ;  till  at  length,  when  it  assumed  the 
quarterly  form,  it  was,  if  I  have  been  correctly  informed,  and  as  its  pages  clear- 
ly intimate,  closely  shut  up  against  communications  in  opposition  to  "  New  Di- 
vinity." In  connection  with  the  operations  of  the  Theological  Department  in 
Yale  College,  it  became  a  powerful  engine  in  diffusing  far  and  near  the  opin- 
ions which  have  distinguished  that  Department. 

The  Connecticut  Observer,  in  1825,  was  originated  by  a  convention  of  our 
brethren,  who  appointed  a  committee  to  select  an  Editor,  and  exercise  a  super- 
vision over  it.  As  it  was  designed  to  be  a  religious  newspaper  for  the  church- 
es of  this  State,  the  worthy  brother  who  was  its  Editor  until  the  last  year, 
considered  it  his  duty  to  maintain  a  neutral  position  in  relation  to  existing  con- 
troversies. This  paper  was  supported  principally  by  present  members  of  the 
Pastoral  Union  and  their  congregations,  till  they  made  an  unsuccessful  applica- 
tion to  the  Committee  and  Editor  for  the  privilege  of  occasionally  occupying  a 
place  in  its  columns  in  defence  of  those  principles  of  our  Fathers'  which  were 
constantly  assailed.  Whether  the  Committee  at  a  subsequent  period  main- 
tained the  same  regard  for  neutrality,  and  the  wishes  of  the  former  Editor  of 
the  paper,  the  present  readers  of  the  Connecticut  Observer  may  decide. 

You  know,  my  brother,  there  was  a  period  previous  to  the  organization  of 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  71 

the  Pastoral  Union,  when  the  religious  periodical  press  in  Connecticut,  under 
the  control  of  Congregationalists,  was  much  employed  in  disseminating  "  New 
Haven  theology,"  and  that  your  orthodox  brethren  could  gain  access  to  no  re- 
ligious periodical  in  this  State  where  they  might  defend  what  they  deemed  to 
be  truth  of  vita!  importance  against  assaults  of  dangerous  error.  And  you 
know  too,  that  in  our  day  when  periodicals  are  so  numerous,  they  who  are 
driven  to  the  necessity  of  communicating  to  the  public  through  the  medium  of 
pamphlets  are  well  nigh  denied  the  liberty  of  the  press.  I  ask  you  Sir,  was 
not  this  the  case  with  the  ministers  whom  you  have  arraigned  before  the  pub- 
lic, as  having  become  partizans  without  sufficient  ground  of  provocation  ?  Did 
not  you  and  your  associates  control  the  press  of  our  denomination  in  Connect- 
icut, and  improve  it  to  your  oum  party  purposes  ?  And  did  not  Dr.  Pond,  the 
worthy  Editor  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  published  at  Boston,  meet  with  in- 
terference, from  the  same  quarter, in  conducting  that  work? 

In  speaking  of  the  meeting  of  the  General  Association,  at  Vernon,  in  1834, 
you  ask ;  "  Was  it  not  then  evident,  for  the  first  time  within  your  memory,  that 
there  were  parties  in  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut  ?  Was  it  not 
manifest  that  the  Pastoral  Union  was  an  organized  party,  and  that  its  first  and 
most  powerful  tendency  was  to  compel  all  those  who  agreed  in  not  belonging 
to  it,  and  in  not  going  along  with  its  measures  to  act  as  another  party  ?" 

I  ask  you,  whether,  without  proceeding  farther,  I  have  not  furnished  con- 
clusive evidence,  that,  previous  to  the  formation  of  the  Pastoral  Union, 

THERE  HID  EXIST,  IN  THIS  STATE,  TO  ALL  INTENTS  AND  PURPOSES,  A  POWERFUL 
ORGANIZATION,  WITH  MANY  FACILITIES  FOR  THE  PROMULGATION  OF  PECULIAR 
SENTIMENTS,  AND  FOR  THE  REVOLUTION  OF  THE  CHURCHES  ?    Look  at  the  TheO- 

logical  Department  in  Yale  College, — look  at  the  alterations  in  the  confessions 
of  faith, — look  at  the  circumstances  and  character  of  our  religious  periodical 
press, — and  look  especially  into  the  Christian  Spectator,  for  1833,  pp.  104, 
105. 

When  you  made  the  interrogations  relative  to  the  meeting  at  Vernon,  had 
you  forgotten,  that  you  and  your  associates  had  already  recognized,  and  pub- 
lished yourselves  to  the  world  as  a  party.  In  the  review  of  the  Works  of 
Leighton,  you  took  for  granted  the  existence  of  parties  among  us,  and  offered 
your  advice  to  each  party.  That  you  and  those  who  sympathize  with  you  had 
long  constituted  a  party,  and  had  long  been  engaged  in  the  accomplishment  of 
party  purposes,  there  is  much  reason  to  believe.  Whether  the  Pastoral  Un- 
ion should  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  a  party,  may  be  thought  worthy  of  farther 
consideration. 

Your  brother  in  the  faith  and  hope  of  the  Gospel. 

GEORGE  A.  CALHOUN. 

Coventry,  February  10,  1840. 


better  X  ♦ 

Dear  Sir —  I  will  now  proceed  to  answer  indirectly  many  of  your  inquiries 
by  a  simple  statement  of  facts.  The  systematic,  efficient,  and  combined  op- 
erations of  the  Theological  Department  in  Yale  College,  the  periodical  press, 
and  other  causes,  had  tor  a  considerable  time  excrled  a  powerful  influence  on 
the  ministry  and  churches,  especially  of  Connecticut,  in  favor  of  "  New 
Divinity  ;"    when,  in  1831,  a  few  of  our  brethren  associated  together  for  the 


72  LETTERS    TO    THE 

purpose  of  circulating  Doctrinal  Tracts.  This  attempt  to  rear  a  feeble  barrier 
in  defence  of  orthodoxy,  was,  as  I  suppose,  unsuccessful,  and  few,  if  any,  tracts 
were  circulated.  In  the  spring  of  1832  there  was  a  proposed  arrangement  to 
resuscitate  the  Connecticut  Evangelical  Magazine,  with  the  doctrinal  charac- 
ter which  it  formerly  maintained  and  without  a  controversial  aspect.  Persons, 
who  had  as  yet  kept  themselves  aloof  from  the  controversy,  were  for  two 
reasons  induced  to  favor  the  proposed  arrangement.  1.  They  approved  of 
the  sentiments  and  spirit  of  the  Magazine,  and  they  believed  that  the  circum- 
stances of  the  churches  demanded  the  influence  of  such  a  periodical.  2.  They 
were  aware  that  a  portion  of  their  brethren  felt  themselves  oppressed,  and,  as 
they  judged,  not  without  reason  ;  and  believing  the  reaction  would  be  in  pro- 
portion to  the  pressure,  they  thought  by  the  resuscitation  of  the  Magazine  a 
necessary  relief  might  be  afforded,  and  an  unhappy  explosion  prevented.  They 
also  indulged  the  hope,  that  pastors  of  your  opinion  and  feeling,  under  the 
then  existing  circumstances,  might  approve  of  its  circulation  among  their 
people.  In  this,  however,  they  were  disappointed.  From  that  quarter  the 
proposal  met  with  decided  disapprobation  and  opposition.  By  individual 
enterprise  the  Magazine,  however,  was  recommenced  with  a  limited  circulation 
and  was  conducted  to  the  general  satisfaction  of  its  patrons,  and,  so  far  as  I 
know,  without  increasing  the  opposition  first  manifested  toward  it. 

You  say  ;  "  The  attempt  had  been  previously  made,  without  success,  to 
form  a  new  organization,  by  the  name  of  Pastoral  Union,  in  each  associational 
district,  with  a  general  union,  constituted  by  delegation  from  the  several  dis- 
tricts. A  new  creed,  designed  to  be  the  basis  of  this  organization,  was  formed 
by  a  committee  or  convention,  assembled  at  Hartford,  and  was  sent  to  some 
individual  supposed  to  be  trusty  in  each  district,  who  was  to  obtain  signatures 
to  the  creed,  and  to  take  other  measures  to  complete  the  arrangement.  This 
attempt  was  in  January,  1833,  but  the  project  in  that  form  and  at  that  time, 
appears  to  have  failed.  The  ministers,  taken  at  home  in  their  parishes,  and  in 
their  habitual  intercourse  with  their  brethren,  would  not  embark  in  a  scheme 
which  implied  nothing  less  than  a  separation  of  the  Congregational  churches 
of  Connecticut  into  two  contending  and  contemptible  sects." 

I  trust,  my  brother,  you  will  be  gratified  in  having  the  prominent  mistakes 
in  the  above  extract  corrected.  This  I  will  do  by  a  communication  of  facts 
so  far  as  they  came  within  my  personal  knowiedge,  and  so  far  as  I  retain  them 
in  memory.  In  January,  1833,  a  conference  of  ministers  on  the  state  of  our 
churches,  at  the  suggestion  and  earnest  request,  (as  I  was  informed  at  the 
time,)  of  the  venerable  Dr.  Perkins,  was  invited  at  Hartford.  Two  pastors 
from  each  district  association  in  this  State,  and  a  few  from  the  vicinity  in  the 
State  of  Massachusetts,  were  requested  to  meet  together  on  that  occasion. 
The  senior  pastor  of  the  church  in  Ellington,  (whom  you  notice  so  particularly,) 
and  the  pastor  of  the  church  in  North  Coventry,  were  selected  from  Tolland 
County  Association.  The  reason  why  the  former  did  not  attend,  he  has  never 
told  me.  About  twenty  ministers,  one  or  more  from  all,  or  nearly  all,  the 
district  associations,  if  I  mistake  not,  were  present.  After  prayer  and  a  free 
conversation  on  the  condition  of  the  churches,  they  resolved,  that  in  their 
judgment  it  was  expedient  to  follow  the  example  of  our  brethren  in  Massa- 
chusetts, in  organizing  for  this  State  a  Pastoral  Union.  Articles  of  agreement, 
as  the  basis  of  such  an  organization,  were  presented  and  adopted.  A  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  prepare  documents  on  this  subject  to  be  laid  before 
the  district  associations,  and  to  adopt  those  measures  for  the  accomplishment 
of  the  object,  which  they  might  deem  needful  and  proper.     A  brother  in  each 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  73 

association  was  requested  to  receive  the  documents  when  prepared,  and  present 
them  to  the  consideration  of  the  association  to  which  he  belonged.  I  have  yet 
to  learn  that  this  conference  of  ministers  did  not  desire  and  hope  that  all  our 
brethren  would  be  embraced  in  this  contemplated  Union,  who  could  ex  animo 
subscribe  a  Confession  of  Faith  like  the  one  said  to  have  been  drafted  by 
Governor  Treadwell  and  published  by  the  Connecticut  Missionary  Society 
for  the  benefit  of  our  new  settlements ;  or  like  the  creed  of  the  Andover  Sem- 
inary. At  least  this  was  my  desire  and  expectation.  The  practice  lately 
approved  by  some  of  subscribing  creeds  "  for  substance  of  doctrine,"  was  not 
then  before  my  mind.  Indeed  when  I  had  contemplated  it  in  the  established 
church  of  England,  I  did  not  imagine  that  it  would  be  adopted  and  defended 
among  us  Congregationalists.  The  documents  I  received,  and,  in  simplicity  of 
heart,  presented  them  for  the  consideration  of  our  association.  So  soon  as 
presented,  a  brother,  who  prefers  the  theology  of  New-Haven  to  that  of  East 
Windsor,  stated  to  the  association,  that  he  had  been  informed  the  design  of  the 
contemplated  organization  was  to  divide  the  churches.  Surely  brethren 
most  opposed  to  "New-Haven  theology,"  "  would  not  embark  in  a  scheme 
which  implied  nothing  less  than  a  separation  of  the  Congregational  churches 
of  Connecticut  into  two  contending  and  contemptible  sects."  The  majority 
of  the  association  did  not  suppose  the  scheme  implied  any  such  thing,  or  that 
any  such  thing  was  intended  by  it.  When  I  found  that  the  motives  of  the 
ministers  who  composed  the  conference  at  Hartford  were  thus  impugned  and 
their  conduct  thus  misunderstood  and  misrepresented,  I  moved,  that  the 
subject  be  indefinitely  postponed,  and  did  not  advocate  a  farther  consideration 
of  it ;  and  the  association,  while  they  were  disposed  to  treat  the  proposal,  and 
those  who  made  it  with  much  respect,  in  view  of  the  feelings  and  representa- 
tions from  a  certain  quarter,  finally  judged  it  expedient  to  waive  the  subject. 
A  similar  scene  was  acted  in  some  other  associations.  An  impression  was 
made  on  many  minds  in  different  parts  of  the  State,  that  nothing  less  was 
designed  by  this  proposed  organization  than  a  division  of  the  churches  into  two 
sects.  And  the  consequence  was,  that  the  documents  were  not  laid  before 
some  of  the  associations.  Hence,  as  you  say,  "  the  project  in  that  form  and 
at  that  time  appears  to  have  failed."  But  its  failure  in  this  way,  together  with 
the  opposition  manifested  to  the  circulation  of  doctrinal  tracts,  and  the  resusci- 
tation of  the  Connecticut  Evangelical  Magazine,  and  other  occurrences,  which 
need  not  be  mentioned  at  this  time,  led  your  aggrieved  brethren  to  feel,  that  as 
you  and  your  associates  occupied  the  field  for  controling  the  religious  public, 
you  designed  to  retain  it  exclusively,  and  that  if  they  acted  at  all  in  self-de- 
fense, they  must  have  some  farther  action  by  themselves. 

The  committee  appointed  by  the  conference  of  ministers  at  Hartford,  in 
discharging  the  duties  of  their  appointment,  invited,  as  I  have  been  informed, 
about  fifty  pastors  of  churches  in  different  parts  of  the  State  to  meet  in  conven- 
tion at  East  Windsor  on  the  10th  of  September,  1833.  In  making  the 
selection  they  doubtless  designed  to  have  the  convention  composed  of  ministers, 
who  believed  that  dangerous  errors  were  disseminated  among  us,  and  that 
there  existed  in  this  State,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  powerful  organization 
designed  to  disseminate  some  of  these  errors  ;  and  probably  they  intended  to 
secure  a  representation  from  each  association.  Though  I  doubt  not  their 
intentions  were  good,  yet  I  think  they  erred  in  not  inviting  a  larger  number. 
And  this  error  may  have  resulted  in  part,  at  least,  from  the  fact,  that  they  did 
not  know  that  so  manv  of  their  brethren  were  aggrieved  and  alarmed,  as  it 
10 


74  LETTERS    TO    THE 

afterwards  appeared.  I  think  it  probable  they  had  been  misinformed  respecting 
the  views  and  feelings  of  "  good  Father  Bartlett,"  and  I  know  they  had  been 
respecting  the  views  of  some  other  ministers  who  are  now  members  of  the 
Pastoral  Union,  and  efficient  friends  of  the  Theological  Institute. 

You  inform  me :  "  The  preparations  and  arrangements  for  this  meeting 
were  all  made  with  the  profoundest  secrecy."  And  soon  after  you  say : 
"  You  know  more  about  this  than  I  do.  for  you  were  one  of  the  actors,  as  1 
suppose,  and  I  have  never  had  the  privilege  even  of  hearing  about  it  from  one 
who  was  there."  Pray  tell  us  then,  how  you  learned  that  "  the  preparations 
and  arrangements  for  the  meeting  were  all  made  with  the  profoundest  secre- 
cy ?"  I  did  not  know  till  the  receipt  of  your  second  letter,  that  the  prepara- 
tions for  the  meeting,  or  the  meeting  itself  was  designed  to  be  a  secret.  And 
that  you  and  some  others  did  not  gain  earlier  information  of  these  transactions, 
may  it  not  be  imputed  to  the  fact  that  we  had  no  control,  at  that  time,  of  the 
religious  press  in  Connecticut  1  We  are  not  so  much  surprized  at  mistakes 
in  your  account  of  this  meeting,  as  that  you  should  venture  to  publish  an 
account  of  it,  when  you  was  not  there,  and  "  never  had  the  privilege  even  of 
hearing  about  it  from  one  who  was  there." 

You  ask  :  "  Were  there  none  present  in  the  convention  but  pastois  V  Ac- 
cording to  my  recollection  there  were  none  present  as  members  of  the 
convention,  but  ordained  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  but  one  without  a  pastoral 
charge  in  Connecticut.*  Again  you  ask  :  "  Was  not  some  part  of  those  two 
days  of  deliberation  occupied  with  disclosures  and  developments  about  brethren 
who  were  not  there  to  answer  for  themselves,  and  for  whom  there  was  no 
voice  to  speak  one  word  ?  Were  not  those  absent  brethren  charged  with  the 
rejection  of  great  truths  which  they  had  again  and  again  professed,  in  every 
form  of  profession  ?  Were  they  not  charged  with  keeping  back  their  real 
opinions,  in  order  to  prepare  the  public  gradually  for  the  reception  of  errors 
which  as  yet  could  not  be  broached  with  safety  ?"  "  Would  you  not  have 
acted  more  wisely  and  becomingly,  if  you  had  acted  with  a  little  more  open- 
ness ?"  "  Would  you  not  have  been  quite  as  likely  to  secure  not  only  the 
approbation  of  the  churches,  but  the  blessing  of  God  on  your  proceedings,  if 
you  had  at  least  permitted  those  men,  upon  whose  condemnation  as  errorists 
and  deceivers  all  your  proceedings  rested,  to  hear  what  was  alleged  against 
them,  and  to  be  heard  in  explanation  and  defence  ?"  "  If  any  of  these  questions 
imply  ignorance  and  misapprehension  on  my  part,  I  pray  you  remember  that 
the  secrecy  in  which  those  proceeding  were  enveloped,  will  excuse  my  igno- 
rance and  may  apologize  for  some  misapprehension." 

I  cannot  conceive,  Sir,  "  that  the  secrecy  in  which  those  proceedings  were 
enveloped  will  excuse  your  ignorance,"  much  less  will  it  apologize,  ignorant  as 
you  acknowledge  yourself  to  be,  for  your  propounding  publicly  these  and 
similar  questions.  If  you  have  not  confidence  in  your  brethren  sufficient  to 
authorize  the  belief,  that  they  "  acted  wisely  and  becomingly,"  can  you  not 
believe  they  avoided  the  commission  of  those  offences  with  which  they  are 
implicated  by  your  inquiries  1  I  should  consider  myself  justified  in  passing 
in  silence  all  questions  of  this  character  ;  but  lest  from  my  silence  it  should  be 
inferred,  that  I  would  evade  a  reasonable  inquiry,  I  will  say,  that  in  that 
meeting  there  was  no  "  prayerful  calumny"  —  no  slandering  of  absent  brethren 
— according  to  my  remembrance,  no  unkind  expressions  —  and  I  presume  not 

•  The  iimc  letter  missive  was  sent  to  one  other  who  had  not  a  pastoral  charge,  viz.  President 
Day. 


REV.  LEONARD  BACON. 


75 


a  word  was  uttered  respecting  any  individual,  which  the  person  who  uttered 
it  would  not  be  willing  to  repeat  to  the  individual  himself.  I  do  not  know 
whether  we  should  '•  have  been  quite  as  likely  to  secure  not  only  the  appro- 
bation of  the  churches,  but  the  blessing  of  God  on  our  proceedings,"  had  we 
adopted  different  measures  ;  the  approbation  of  the  churches  and  the  blessing 
of  God  on  our  proceedings  have  been  thus  far  secured  beyond  our  expectations 
at  that  time. 

In  giving  an  account  of  the  proceedings  of  this  Convention,  I  shall  copy  from 
an  official  document. 

After  the  meeting  was  constituted;  "A  committee  of  six  Vere  appointed  on  the  subject  of 

organizing  a  Pastoral  Union  for  the  State,  who  reported  in  favor  of  such  an  organization,  with 
the  recommendation  of  a  Constitution  and  Articles, of  Agreement,  as  the  basis  of  the  Union. 
The  resolution  proposed  by  the  Committee  was  adopted  unanimously,  and  the  Constitution  brought 
in  by  them,  after  mature  deliberation,  article  by  article,  was  unanimously  adopted  —  which  is  in 
the  following  words,  viz  : 

Art.  I.     The  name  of  this  Association  shall  be  the  Connecticut  Pastoral  Union. 

Art.  II.  The  object  of  this  Union  shall  be  the  promotion  of  ministerial  intcrcourse,fcllowship, 
and  pastoral  usefulness,  —  the  promotion  of  re^vals  of  religion,  —  the  defence  of  evangelical 
truth  against  prevailing  errors  in  doctrine  or  practice,  and  the  raising  up  of  sound  and  faithful 
ministers  for  the  supply  of  our  churches. 

Art.  III.  The  Articles  of  Agreement,  adopted  by  our  brethren,  convened  at  Hartford,  Janu- 
ary 9th,  1833,  and  which,  as  amended,  shall  be  the  doctrinal  basis  of  this  Union. 

Art.  IV.  Those  pastors  of  the  state,  who  have  already  subscribed  these  Articles,  or  may  at  tha 
present  meeting  subscribe  them,  shall  be  members  of  this  Union.  And  subsequently  to  the  first 
annual  meeting,  no  persons  may  become  members  but  by  nomination  of  some  member  and  a  voto 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present,  at  any  annual  meeting,  and  by  signing  the  Articles  of 
Agreement ;  except  such  as  may  be  invited  by  the  Committee  of  Arrangements  previous  to  tho 
first  annual  meeting. 

An?.  V.  The  Union  shall  meet  annually  at  such  time  and  place  as  shall  be  designated  in  tha 
By-Laws,  for  the  election  of  officers,  and  the  transaction  of  necessary  business. 

Art.  VI.  At  each  annual  meeting,  a  Moderator,  Scribe,  and  Committee  of  Arrangements 
shall  be  chosen  by  ballot,  who  shall  continue  in  office  till  others  arc  chosen. 

Art.  VII.  A  Recording  Secretary  shall  also  be  appointed,  who  shall  hold  his  office  till  another 
ie  chosen,  and  who  shall  keep  a  faithful  and  accurate  record  of  the  Constitution,  the  members, 
and  acts  and  votes  of  the  Union. 

Art.  VIII.  Special  meetings  may  be  called  by  the  Moderator,  or  Recording  Secretary, at  the 
request  of  the  Committee  of  Arrangements,  or  any  five  members,  by  publishing  a  notice  in  soma 
periodical  publication,  or  by  personal  notice  to  each  member,  at  least  one  month  previous  to  the 
proposed  .neeting.  And  no  meeting  which  is  not  thus  notified,  except  the  annual  or  adjourned 
meetings,  shall  be  considered  regular. 

Akt.  IX.  The  Union  may  at  any  time  adopt  such  measures  respecting  the  establishment  of 
seminaries  or  periodical  publications,  as  they  shall  judge  will  conduce  to  the  general  objects  of 
this  Union. 

Art.  X.  This  Constitution,  with  the  exception  of  the  Articles  of  Agreement,  may  be  altered 
or  amended  at  an  annual  meeting  of  the  society,  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present, 
such  alteration  or  amendment  having  been  proposed  to  the  Union,  and  left  with  the  Recording 
Secretary,  a  year  previous  to  its  adoption." 

"  The  exocdiency  of  establishing  a  manual  labor  Theological  Institute,  came  up  next  in  order, 
and  having  keen  long  and  solemnly  discussed  and  submitted  to  God  in  prayer,  the  question  was  at 
length  taken,  and  the  resolution  unanimously  adopted,  that  it  is  expedient  to  establish  a  manual- 
labor  Theological  Institute  in  this  State.*' 

The  convention  having  adjourned  without  day,  the  Pastoral  Union  was 
organized  by  the  appointment  of  the  officers  prescribed  in  the  constitution. 
A  committee,  previously  appointed  on  this  service,  reported  a  plan  for  the 
regulation  of  the  contemplated  Theological  Institute,  which,  after  a  careful 
consideration  of  each  article  separately,  was  adopted,  and  is  as  follows : 

Art.  I.     The  seminary  shall  be  called  the  Theological  Institute  of  Connecticut. 

Art.  II.  It?  primary  object  shall  be  the  education  of  pious  young  men  for  the  ministry  of  the 
Gospel,  in  connection  with  which  there  may  be  a  department  for  teaching  the  sciences  prepara- 
tory to,  or  conntcted  with,  a  collegiate  course  of  study. 


76  LETTERS    TO    TJIE 

Art.  III.  The  general  management  and  oversight  of  the  seminary  shall  be  vested  in  a  Board 
of  Trustees,  to  consist  of  at  least  twelve  Ministers  and  eight  Laymen,  who  shall  be  appointed 
annually  by  the  Pastoral  Union  of  Connecticut.  A  majority  of  the  Trustees  shall  be  a  quorum 
to  transact  business  at  any  meeting  duly  notified. 

Art.  IV.  After  the  requisite  funds  shall  be  obtained,  the  seminary  shall  be  furnished  with  a 
President,  and  such  Professors,  and  distribution  of  labor  as  the  Trustees  shall  deem  expedient. 

Art.  V.  The  candidates  for  admission  to  the  Theological  Department  shall  be  persons  of 
accredited  piety,  and  members  of  some  Congregational  or  other  evangelical  church.  They  shall 
have  a  diploma  from  some  college,  or  furnish  evidence  of  literary  and  scientific  attainments, 
■atisfactory  to  the  Trustees,  or  to  their  Committee,  in  connection  with  the  Faculty  of  the  Semi- 
nary.    The  qualifications  for  admission  to  the  Literary  Department  shall  be  a  fair  moral  character. 

Art.  VI.  The  Board  of  Trustees  shall  be  authorized  to  determine  the  location,  of  the  Institu- 
tion ;  and  to  obtain,  if  practicable,  a  Charter  of  Incorporation,  enabling  them  to  hold  property 
and  possess  the  other  powers  of  a  corporate  body.  They  shall  make  the  necessary  purchases  ; 
prepare  accommodations,  as  they  may  be  needed  ;  appoint  officers  ;  and  solicit,  or  appoint  agenta 
to  solicit,  funds  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  objects  of  the  Institute.  They  shall  be  authorized 
to  appoint  a  Librarian  and  make  the  necessary  By-Laws  for  the  regulation  of  the  Library,  and 
the  Institution  generally.  They  shall  also  appoint  a  Treasurer  for  the  Institute,  who  shall  give 
satisfactory  bonds  for  the  faithful  performance  of  his  official  duties. 

Art.  VII.  The  members  of  the  Institute  shall  be  examined  semi-annually,  by  the  Faculty, 
in  their  several  studies,  and  onee  a  year  in  the  presence  of  the  Trustees,  or  a  Committee  appoint- 
ed for  that  purpose.     The  annual  examination  shftll  bo  held  week  in 

Art.  VIII.  Every  Trustee  and  officer  in  the  Institute,  shall,  on  entering  upon  his  duties, 
Subscribe  the  creed  of  the  Pastoral  Union  of  Connecticut.  He  shall  also  declare  his  full  assent 
to  it  every  year  during  his  continuance  in  office.  The  Faculty  shall  make  this  declaration  to  the 
Trustees,  and  the  Trustees  to  the  Pastoral  Union.  And  in  default  of  such  declaration,  their  office 
■hall  be  considered  vacant,  and  such  vacancies  shall  forthwith  be  filled,  according  to  the  provis- 
ions of  the  Constitution. 

Art.  IX.  The  Trustees  are  authorized  to  call  special  meetings  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  if  they 
judge  that  the  interests  of  the  Seminary  require  such  a  measure.  The  Faculty  and  Trustees 
ahall  also  report  annually  the  state  of  the  Institute  to  the  Pastoral  Union. 

Art.  X.  This  Constitution  may  be  altered  or  amended  by  a  vote  of  three-fourths  of  the  mem- 
bers present  at  any  annual  meeting,  provided  such  alteration  or  amendment  shall  have  been  laid 
over  from  a  previous  meeting." 

After  the  adoption  of  this  constitution,  the  trustees  of  the  Institute  for  the 
then  year  ensuing-  were  chosen,  a  board  of  commissioners  were  appointed  for 
the  purpose  of  doing  any  preparatory  business  touching  the  Theological 
Institute  ;  to  appoint  the  first  meeting  of  the  trustees,  and  make  report  to 
them  of  their  doings  ;  and  the  meeting  was  adjourned. 

This  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  at  East  "Windsor  was 

Eublished  in  1833  ;  but  it  appears  that  you  did  not  know  of  the  fact  till  you 
ad  published  your  second  letter.  You  verily  thought  that  the  constitution 
of  the  Pastoral  Union  was  "  as  much  unknown  to  the  public  as  e.  masonic 
chapter."  And  you  appear,  from  your  frequent  allusion  to  our  supposed 
secrets,  to  think,  that  the  concerns  of  the  Pastoral  Union  and  of  the  Theological 
Institute  are  conducted  with  "the  profoundest  secrecy."  Before  you  commence 
another  series  of  letters,  accusing  us  of  improperly  withholding  information, 
be  so  good,  my  brother,  as  to  examine  what  we  have  spread  before  the  public. 
You  will  find  in  the  Connecticut  Evangelical  Magazine  forty-eight  pages  filled 
with  this  matter.  The  Inaugural  Address  of  the  President,  and  the  Address 
of  Mr.  Riddel  at  the  laying  of  the  corner-stone,  both  of  which  were  published, 
will  afford  you  information  respecting  our  proceedings.  The  columns  of  the 
Watchman  and  the  Congregationalist  contain  a  history  of  our  transactions  for 
a  few  years  past.  Reports  of  the  trustees  have  been  annually  published  both 
in  the  newspaper  and  pamphlet  form,  giving  in  detail,  (even  to  all  the  money 
received  and  how  expended,)  an  accurate  account  of  their  proceedings. 
While  the  Pastoral  Union,  and  the  trustees  of  the  Institute  have  not  obtruded 
themselves  on  the  public,  they  have  been  particular  in  unfolding  to  public 
view  their  acts  and  their  plans  of  operation.     If,  after  consulting  public  docu- 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  77 

ments,  you  should  still  be  suspicious  that  there  are  some  things  yet  to  be 
revealed,  please  to  meet  me  at  the  Theological  Institute,  and  I  assure  you  we 
will  find  out  the  secrets  if  there  are  any.  But  do  not  again  impute  to  us  the 
delinquency  of  withholding  information  to  which  the  jreligious  public  are 
entitled.     It  is  an  ungenerous  imputation. 

In  speaking  of  the  constitution  of  the  Pastoral  Union  you  say,  "  One  feature 
of  that  constitution,  however,  is  well  known.  Membership  in  the  Pastoral 
Union  is  by  election.  Why  is  this  ?  Why  was  a  principle  so  novel,  and  so 
fitted  to  produce  unkind  and  party  feelings  introduced  into  the  constitution  of 
the  Pastoral  Union  ?  Why  do  you  not  set  open  your  doors  to  every  Congre- 
gational pastor  who  may  be  willing  to  subscribe  your  constitution  and  standards 
of  orthodoxy  ?  If  your  object  is  to  establish  and  perpetuate  a  party  —  if  your 
object  is  to  divide  the  Congregationalists  of  Connecticut  completely  and  for- 
ever —  this  principle  is,  in  respect  to  such  an  end,  a  wise  one.  On  what  other 
ground  it  can  be  vindicated,  I  am  yet  to  learn." 

Is  membership  by  election  in  organized  bodies  a  novel  principle  ?  Please 
to  examine  farther  the  constitutions  of  such  bodies.  While  you  condemn  the 
Pastoral  Union  for  introducing  into  their  constitution  this  principle,  many 
other  associations  may  fall  under  the  same  condemnation,  some  of  which  I 
doubt  not  are  very  dear  to  you.  The  Pastoral  Union  of  Connecticut,  elect 
the  trustees  of  the  Theological  Institute,  who  are  a  corporate  body  entrusted 
by  the  churches  with  property  and  sacred  and  weighty  interests.  The  Fellows 
of  Yale  College  are  a  corporate  body,  composed  of  eight  officers  of  our 
State  government,  and  ten  clergymen,  not  elected  by  nearly  a  hundred 
pastors.  But  how  are  they  elected  ?  It  is  well  known  that  vacancies  in  the 
clerical  part  of  the  corporation,  are  filled  by  the  corporation  itself.  Suppose 
I  should  now  interrogate  you  in  your  own  language.  "  Why  is  this  ?  Why 
was  a  principle  so  novel,  and  so  fitted  to  produce  unkind  and  party  feelings 
introduced  into  the  constitution  "  of  Yale  College  ?  "  Why  do  you  not  set 
open  your  doors  to  every  Congregational  pastor  who  may  be  willing  to 
subscribe  your  constitution  and  standards  of  orthodoxy,"  if  you  have  any? 

Do  you  believe,  that  there  is  a  pastor  of  a  Congregational  church  in  the 
State,  who  is  desirous  of  co-operating  with  his  brethren  in  accomplishing  the- 
objects  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  that  has  been  denied  the  privilege  ?  Do  you= 
believe  any  such  pastor  ever  will  be  refused  ?  And  why  should  those  minis- 
ters, who  manifest  their  disapprobation  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  and  who  would 
not  belong  to  it  if  they  could,  complain  because  membership  is  by  election  ? 
Why  do  not  those  persons  in  community,  who  will  not  be  associated  with  any 
ecclesiastical  society,  complain  that  membership  in  these  societies  is  by  elec- 
tion ?  My  dear  Sir,  you  are  one  of  a  small  number  who  lave  a  theological 
seminary  under  their  exclusive  control ;  and  can  you  not  entrust  the  supervis- 
ion and  control  of  the  Theological  Institute  to  a  large  number  )f  your  brethren  ? 

You  say,  "  when  I  wrote  that  letter,  [your  second  letter,]  it  was  my  im-. 
pression,  confirmed  by  the  opinion  of  the  only  member  of  the  Pastoral  Union 
on  whom  I  could  call  for  information.that  the  constitution  of  the  Pastoral  Union 
and  that  of  the  seminary  at  East  Windsor  had  never  beer,  published.  Since 
that  time  there  has  been  put  in  my  hands  a  pamphlet  of  eight  pages,  printed 
in  1833,  containing  some  extracts  from  the  minutes  of  the  convention  which 
formed  the  Pastoral  Union,  together  with  some  extracts  from  the  minutes  of 
the  Pastoral  Union  and  the  Board  of  trustees  of  the  Theological  Institute. 
Among  the  extracts  I  find  the  constitution  of  the  Pastoral  Union  and  the 
constitution  of  the  Theological  Institute.     But  I  look  in  vain  for  an  exposition 


78  LETTERS    TO    THE 

of  the  reasons  why  the  new  organization  was  deemed  necessary,  or  why  a 
new  theological  seminary  was  wanted  in  Connecticut."  Did  you  expect  to 
find  in  these  constitutions,  or  extracts,  "  an  exposition  of  the  reasons  why  the 
new  organization  was  deemed  necessary,  or  why  a  new  theological  seminary 
was  wanted  in  Connecticut "  ?  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  customary  to  accom- 
pany such  documents  with  an  exposition  of  the  reasons  why  they  were 
adopted.  But  were  not  reasons  why  a  new  theological  seminary  was  wanted 
in  Connecticut,  early  given  to  the  public,  and  have  they  not  met  your  eye? 
In  another  place  you  allude  to  an  Appeal  to  the  Public  by  the  Trustees  of  the 
Institute.     Allow  me  to  quote  a  few  extracts  from  that  Appeal. 

"  We  do  not  deny,  that  there  exists  serious  dissatisfaction  in  relation  to  the  Theological  School 
at  New  Haven  ;  and  that  this  is  among  the  reasons  which  have  given  rise  to  the  new  Institution. 
The  grounds  of  this  dissatisfaction,  we  now  feel  ourselves  called  upon  frankly  to  state. 

"1.  Many  have  been  dissatisfied,  that  the  Theological  School  at  New  Haven,  has  no  more 
connection  with  the  ministers  and  churches  of  the  State.  Being  an  appendage  of  the  College,  it 
is  under  the  entire  control  of  the  Corporation ;  a  Board  which,  as  at  present  constituted,  is  deem- 
ed altogether  unsuitable  to  be  guardians  of  a  Theological  Seminary."  "  We  do  not  complain  of 
the  manner  in  which  this  Board  is  constituted,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  Academical  Department 
merely  :  but  only  in  reference  to  the  Theological  School.  The  principle  for  which  we  contend, 
i6,  that  a  Theological  Seminary  ought  to  be  under  the  control  of  a  distinct  Board  of  Trustees, 
composed  of  ministers  and  members  of  churches,  who  are  amenable  to  some  ecclesiastical  body. 
The  Trustees  of  the  Institute  are  appointed  by  the  Pastoral  Union,  and  are  amenable  to  them. 
TheYe  is  of  course,  a  connection  between  the  Seminary  and  the  ministers  and  churches, 
which  would  not  exist,  were  it  under  the  control  of  an  independent  and  irresponsible  Board. 

"  2.  Another  ground  of  dissatisfaction,  with  the  New  Haven  School,  as  at  present  organized, 
is  the  want  of  sufficient  security  against  the  introduction  of  heresy. 

"  3.  The  Theological  views  maintained  by  the  Professors,  have  given  great  and  extensive 
dissatisfaction. 

"4.  Another  ground  of  dissatisfaction,  is,  the  great  importance  which  the  Professors  have 
attached  to  their  peculiar  views,  and  the  charges  of  dangerous  error,  which  they  have  brought 
against  their  brethren. 

"  But  while  we  frankly  acknowledge,  that  the  facts  which  we  have  stated,  are  among 
the  reasons  which  led  to  the  establishment  of  the  Theological  Institute ;  we  wish  the  public  to 
understand,  that  there  ire  other  considerations  by  which  we  are  influenced  in  the  prosecution  of 
our  enterprise. 

"  The  growing  demand  for  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  the  rapid  increase  of  theological  stu- 
dents, occasioned  by  the  efforts  of  education  societies,  and  by  frequent  revivals  of  religion,  seem 
to  us  to  call  for  an  increased  number  of  Theological  Institutions. 

"We  believe  also,  that  as  there  is  a  liability  in  such  institutions  to  become  corrupt  in  doctrine, 
their  number  ought  to  be  so  increased, that  they  shall  operate  as  a  check  upon  each  other,  and  that 
no  one  shall  become  overgrown.  If  there  were  but  one  such  seminary  in  New  England,  and  if 
with  its  large  endowments,  and  extended  patronage,  it  should  become  the  seat  of  heresy,  who 
can  estimate  the  evils  of  which  it  would  be  instrumental.  And  here  we  cannot  but  advert  to  the 
fact, that  the  history  of  all  ages  admonishes  us, that  large  and  overgrown  institutions  are  peculiarly 
liable  to  corruption.  By  increasing  the  number,  we  diminish  the  danger  from  this  source,  and 
throw  around  the  churches,  additional  safeguards  against  the  inroads  of  destructive  error. 

"  There  is  still  another  consideration  which  has  had  no  small  weight  in  our  minds.  Until 
recently,  the  subject  of  physical  education  has  received  but  little  attention  ;  but  its  importance  ia 
beginning  now  to  be  ceeply  and  extensively  felt.  Facts  have  been  disclosed,  which  go  to  show, 
that  the  destruction  oflit'e  and  health  in  our  literary  and  theological  seminaries,  occasioned  by  the 
neglect  of  bodily  excrtise,  is  truly  appalling. 

"  It  appears  from  tic  testimony  of  a  large  number  of  the  most  respectable  teachers  in  our 
country,  that  of  those  who  deserve  the  character  of  close  students,  full  one  half,  if  not  more, 
injure  themselves  by  an  injudicious  neglect  of  exercise ;  and  that  of  these,  full  one-fourth,  if  not 
a  third,  lay  a  foundatior  for  feebleness  and  disease  which  go  with  them  through  life,  and  greatly 
diminish  both  their  usefulness  and  enjoyment.  This  evil  surely  calls  for  a  remedy,  and  we  know 
of  no  remedy  which  promises  to  be  more  successful  than  that  provided  by  manual  labor  institu- 
tions. Such  is  the  Institution  under  our  care ;  and  if  the  plan  shall  succeed  according  to  our 
wishes,  it  will  possess  the  two-fold  advantage,  of  contributing  to  preserve  the  lives  and  health  of 
the  students,  and  of  cnibling  them  at  the  same  time,  to  defray,  in  part,  at  least,  the  expenses  of 
their  education.     Is  not  this  part  of  the  plan  worthy  of  encouragement  ?" 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  79 

With  the  document  from  which  these  extracts  are  taken  before  you,  did  you 
M  look  in  vain  for  an  exhibition  of  the  reasons  why  the  organization  was  deemed 
necessary,  or  why  a  new  theological  seminary  was  wanted  in  Connecticut "  ? 
With  this  document  at  command  were  you  authorized  to  assert,  that  "all 
(our)  proceedings  "  rested  on  the  u  condemnation  "  of  brethren  "  aserrorists  and 
deceivers"?  The  trustees  do  not  profess  to  assign  all  "the  reasons  which 
have  given  rise  to  the  new  institution."  Reasons  not  mentioned,  are  known 
to  have  had  much  influence  on  the  minds  of  some  of  the  founders  of  the  In- 
stitute. In  the  communication  dated  at  Yale  College,  May  6,  1822,  and 
addressed  to  the  associations  in  behalf  of  the  theological  department  of  that 
institution,  it  is  said,  "  //  will  not  be  thought  too  strotm  /<>  affirm,  that  one  or  two 
theological  institutions  cannot  long  be  adequate  to  the  just  <!<  mands  of  Providence 
on  the  piety  and  talents  of  New-England?  This  sentiment,  which  was  pub- 
lished at  New-Haven,  in  1822,  was  acted  upon  at  East-Windsor  in  1833. 
Some  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union  were  confident  that  the  number  of 
theological  seminaries  in  New-England  ought  to  be  increased  and  that  it 
would  be  increased  ;  and  that  the  valley  of  the  Connecticut  in  which  is  the 
centre  of  as  dense  a  "  population  of  evangelical  churches  as  is  found  in  the 
eastern  states,  would  sooner  or  later  be  favored  with  a  school  of  the  prophets. 
And  they  considered  themselves  called  upon  by  the  providence  of  God  to  aid 
in  the  establishment  of  such  a  school." 

"  But  how  the  Institute,  or  the  Union,"  you  say,  "  is  more  connected  with 
the  churches  than  other  voluntary  associations,  I  am  yet  to  learn."  If  you 
mean  by  "  voluntary  associations,"  our  Missionary,  Bible,and  Tract  Societies,  I 
do  not  know  why  you  institute  the  comparison.  But  if  you.by  "  other  voluntary 
associations,"  mean,  as  I  conclude  you  must,  some  other  Congregational  theo- 
logical seminaries,  it  appears  to  me,  that  it  is  very  easy  to  discover  the  differ- 
ence. The  churches  select  their  pastors,  and  they  may  prefer  to  select,  as  a 
number  of  churches  in  the  State  have  recently  done,  pastors  who  will  be 
members  of  the  Pastoral  Union.  Members  of  the  Pastoral  Union  annually 
elect  the  trustees  of  the  Institute,  which  are  to  consist  of  at  least  twelve  min- 
isters and  eii;ht  laymen.  In  the  board  of  trustees  the  churches  must  always  be 
represented  1  >v.  at  least,  eight  of  their  members.  And  in  the  annual  election 
of  that  board,"  the  churches  act  "  through  their  pastors."  The  faculty  of  the 
Institute  are  responsible  to  the  trustees,  and  the  trustees  are  amenable  to  the 
Pastoral  Union,  and  the  Pastoral  Union,  by  virtue  of  their  pastoral  relations, 
are  accountable  to  the  churches.  And  is  the  theological  seminary  under  your 
control  thus  connected  with  the  churches?  Have  the  churches  any  lay-rep- 
resentation in  the  corporation  ?  Are  the  lay-members  of  the  corporation 
necessarily  members  of  our  churches  ?  Are  they  necessarily  of  our  denomin- 
ation ?  Are  they  necessarily  believers  in  divine  revelation?  And  in  the 
election  of  the  clerical  members  of  the  corporation,"  the  churches  —  what  can 
they  do  ?"  "  The  ministers  —  what  minister  of  Connecticut,  as  such,  has  any 
thing  to  do  with  it."  Is  not  the  body  which  controls  this  seminary  independent 
of  the  churches,  and  irresponsible  to  them  ?  And  how  does  it  comport  with 
the  spirit  of  Congregationalism,  to  have  an  independent,  irresponsible,  self-per- 
petuated body  to  manage  the  dearest  and  most  momentous  interests  of  the 
churches  ?  Pardon  us,  my  brother,  if  we  are  wrong  in  believing  that  there 
is  a  better  way. 

Your  friend  and  brother. 

"  GEORGE  A.  CALHOUN. 

Coventry,  February  25,  1810. 


80  LETTERS    TO    THE 

He  tier  XL 

Dear  Sir, — You  ask  me  "  to  observe,  historically,  the  bearing  of  the  Pasto- 
ral Union,  and  of  the  Theological  Institute,  on  our  ecclesiastical  affairs." 

You  say;  the  first  meeting  of  the  General  Association,  after  the  memorable 
convention  of  September,  1833,  was  held  at  Vernon, (June,  1834,)  a  few  miles 
from  East  Windsor.  Instantly  it  appeared  that  a  new  era  had  commenced. 
The  meeting  was  signalized  by  an  attempt  to  make  the  General  Association 
endorse  implicitly,  and  without  a  particle  of  official  information,  the  doings  of 
the  East  Windsor  Convention." — "  The  brethren  who  had  been  concerned  in 
establishing  the  new  institution,  and  who  were  desirous  to  have  the  Gene- 
ral Association  sanction  their  doings,  were  invited  and  entreated  to  come  for- 
ward, then  and  there,  with  a  frank  exposition  of  the  reasons  which  had  moved 
them  to  set  up  a  new  theological  school  in  Connecticut,  and  of  their  plan,  their 
intentions  and  their  hopes.  Reference  was  made  to  the  fact  that  Dr.  Tyler 
the  president  of  the  new  institution,  was  in  the  house,  and  it  was  requested 
that  he,  as  one  competent  to  testify,  would  make  such  a  statement  in  behalf  of 
the  institution  as  might  enable  the  Association  to  take  cognizance  of  it,  and  to 
form  an  opinion  of  its  merits." — "  And  did  not  the  Pastoral  Union  party — I 
know  not  by  what  better  name  to  call  it — submit  to  that  faint,  cold  notice  of 
their  great  enterprize,  rather  than  expose  their  plan,  their  hopes,  and  their  rea- 
sons, to  the  judgment  of  their  brethren  ?" 

Since  the  publication  of  your  third  letter  I  have  applied  to  a  number  of  gen- 
tlemen residing  in  different  parts  of  the  State,  who  were  present  in  the  meet- 
ing at  Vernon,  and  most  of  them  members  of  the  Association,  for  their  recollec- 
tions of  what  transpired  on  that  occasion  ;  and  their  letters,  in  reply,  are  now 
before  me.     And  allow  me  to  say, 

1.  I  think  you  must  be  incorrect  in  asserting,  that  "  the  meeting  was  signali- 
zed by  an  attempt  to  make  the  General  Association  endorse  implicitly,  and  with- 
out a  particle  of  official  information,  the  doings  of  the  East  Windsor  conven- 
tion." Will  you  affirm  that  such  an  endorsement  was  requested  by  any  per- 
son ?  Or  do  you  claim,  that  a  recognition,  in  the  "  Report  on  the  state  of  Re- 
ligion," of  the  existence  and  circumstances  of  the  Theological  Institute,  is  vir- 
tually an  endorsement  of  the  doings  of  the  East  Windsor  convention  ?•'?  Has 
it  been  so  considered  for  five  years  past  when  the  Institute  has  been  annually 
thus  noticed  by  the  General  Association  ?  Do  you  say  that  members  of  the 
Pastoral  Union  endorse  "  the  doings"  of  the  Theological  Department  in  Yale 
College,  when  they  vote  a  respectful  notice  of  that  Department  as  inserted  in 
our  "  Reports  on  the  state  of  Religion  ?"  No  Sir,  a  recognition  of  the  existence 
and  circumstances  of  the  Theological  Institute,  does  not  imply  an  endorse- 
ment of  "  the  doings  of  the  East  Windsor  convention."  And  the  brother  who 
moved  an  amendment  of  the  report,  which  you  had  drawn  up,  by  inserting  a 
notice  of  the  Institute,  informs  me,  that  he  "  wished  no  commendation  of  the 
Institute,  but  insisted  that  it  ought  to  be  mentioned  in  the  report  as  it  was." 
M  Without  a  particle  of  official  information" — Previous  to  this  period,  official 
information  of  the  origin,  design,  and  circumstances  of  the  Institute  had  been 
given  to  the  public  and  extensively  circulated.  In  relation  to  it,  various  arti- 
cles had  appeared  in  the  public  prints,  and  the  Legislature  had  granted  it  a 
charter  of  incorporation  ;  and  do  you  say,  that  there  was  "  an  attempt  to  make 
the  General  Association  endorse  implicitly,  and  without  a  particle  of  official  in- 
formation,"  &c.  ?  Do  you  claim,  that  the  Trustees  of  the  Institute  should  have 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  81 

communicated  directly  to  the  General  Association  respecting  their  seminary  in 
order  to  make  the  information  official?  Has  the  corporation  of  Yale  College 
to  this  day  ever  communicated  to  the  General  Association  respecting  the  The- 
ological Department  in  that  Institution  ?  Am  I  right  or  am  I  wrong  in  saying, 
that  at  Windsor,  in  1823,  the  Theological  Department  in  Yale  College  was 
first  introduced  to  the  notice  of  the  General  Association,  without  official  au- 
thority, by  a  member  of  that  body',  as  was  the  Theological  Institute  at  Vernon, 
in  1834,  and  that  there  would  have  been  no  more  unpleasant  excitement  in  the 
one  case  than  in  the  other  hid  it  not  been  for  the  warm  opposition  of  a  few  indi- 
viduals at  Vernon?  Or  do  you  claim  that  information  caunot  be  official,  unless 
it  comes  to  the  General  Association  through  the  medium  of  a  District  Associ- 
ation ?  The  Theological  Institute  is  located  within  the  limits  of  the  North  As- 
sociation of  Hartford  county,  and  since  1834,  it  has  been  respectfully  and  kind- 
ly noticed  annually  by  that  body  in  the  report  of  the  state  of  religion  within 
their  bounds  which  they  have  sent  up  to  the  General  Association  ;  and  at 
Vernon  the  delegates  from  that  District  Association  assured  the  General  As- 
sociation, that  the  omission  that  year  was  through  inadvertance,  and  they  re- 
quested that  the  seminary  might  be  respectfully  noticed  in  the  general  report. 
It  appears  to  me  that  here  arc  found  many  particles  of  official  information. 

2.  Dr.  Tyler,  the  President  of  the  new  Institution,  was  in  the  house  and 
was  competent  and  ready  to  give  any  official  information  which  could  be  rea- 
sonably required  ;  but  he  was  not  invited  to  do  it ;  and  the  reason  why  mem- 
bers of  the  Association,  who  were  also  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union  did  not 
claim  for  him  <he  privilege  of  doing  it,  was  not  because  they  preferred  to 
"  submit  to  that  faint,  cold  notice  of  their  great  enterprize,  rather  than  expose 
their  plan,  their  hopes  and  their  reasons,  to  the  judgment  of  their  brethren." 
They  had  already  -'exposed  their  plan,  their  hopes,  and  their  reasons,  to  the 
judgment  of  their  brethren  ;"  and  they  would  have  rejoiced  to  have  done  it 
again  "  then  and  there,"  had  a  suitable  opportunity  been  afforded. 

That  this  meeting  of  the  Association  was  of  an  unpleasant  aspect,  is  not  to 
be  denied  ;  but  who  contributed  most  to  give  it  that  aspect,  is  now  the  point 
at  issue,  since  you  have  at  this  late  period  come  out  as  an  accuser  of  your 
brethren.  Did  not  a  delegate  from  New  Haven  West  Association  contribute  full 
his  part?  You  may  wish  to  publish  for  the  edification  of  the  churches  a  more 
complete  account  of  the  proceedings  of  this  meeting;  and  therefore  allow  me 
to  direct  your  attention  by  way  of  inquiry  to  a  few  transactions  of  that  occa- 
sion, which  you  have  not  noticed. 

1.  Was  not  the  meeting  signalized  by  an  extraordinary  and  unsuccessful  at- 
tempt to  make  the  General  Association  censure  the  Middlesex  Association,  for 
noticing  in  their  report  of  the  state  of  religion  within  their  limits,  disorders 
which  had  occurred  among  them  ?  Was  not  the  language  of  censure  designed 
to  be  passed  in  substance  as  follows:  From  one  of  the  Associations  a  gloomy 
and  desponding  picture  of  the  state  of  religion  is  given :  but  if  our  brethren 
will  have  confidence  in  God.  erase  their  complaining,  and  labor  with  diligence 
for  the  conversion  of  souls,  they  will  not  have  an  occasion  to  send  up  such  a 
report.  Were  not  the  harmony  and  serenity  of  the  meeting  much  disturbed 
by  this  attempted  censure?:  And  who  was  forward  in  making  the  attempt  ? 

2.  Was  not  the  meeting  signalized  by  a  successful  opposition  to  a  proposal 
to  reprint  the  Saybrook  Platform,  which  was  then  out  of  print?  As  an  ob- 
jection to  reprinting  that  book,  did  no  member  of  the  Association  say,  that  the 
Savoy  Confession  contained  doctrines  in  which  he  did  not  believe?    Did  no 

11 


82  LETTERS    TO    THE 

member  in  substance  say,  I  did  not  know  that  this  Association  had  a  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  I  thought  the  Bible  was  our  confession  ?  To  avoid  sanctioning  all 
the  doctrines  embraced  in  the  Savoy  Confession,  was  it  not  proposed  by  one 
of  your  associates,  to  print  the  Heads  of  Agreement  without  the  Confession  ? 
Did  not  this  decided  opposition  to  reprinting  and  circulating  the  Constitution 
of  our  churches,  occasion  much  alarm  and  disturbance  in  the  meeting?  Was 
not  the  disturbance  so  great  as  to  induce  a  member  of  the  Pastoral  Union  who 
had  advocated  the  motion  to  reprint  the  Platform  to  move  its  indefinite  post- 
ponment  ?  And  who  was  forward  in  this  opposition  ? 

3.  Was  not  the  meeting  signalized  by  a  formal  vote  to  erase  from  the 
Minutes  of  the  Association  all  clerical  titles  ?  Was  not  much  time  occupied, 
as  it  has  proved,  unprofitably,  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject  ?  And  who  was 
forward  in  the  discussion  ? 

4.  On  the  day  in  which  the  meeting  at  Vernon  terminated,  was  not  the 
prophesy  uttered,  that  the  Pastoral  Union  would  collect  funds  sufficient  to  en- 
dow one  professorship,  that  that  endowment  would  be  transferred  to  Yale 
College,  and  that  their  Theological  Institute  would  become  a  Grammar  school  ? 
And  who  was  the  prophet  ? 

Previous  to  the  publication  of  your  account  of  this  meeting,  my  brother,  I 
expressed  to  you  my  opinion,  that  evil  and  only  evil  would  result  from  calling 
up  to  remembrance  unpleasant  scenes  which  long  ago  transpired,  and  making 
them  matters  of  record  and  of  public  notoriety.  If  justice  to  members  of  the 
Pastoral  Union  who  were  members  also  of  the  Association  at  Vernon,  would 
have  allowed,  I  should  have  suffered  all  you  have  written  respecting  this  meet- 
ing to  pass  in  silence. 

The  short  discussion  in  the  Association  at  Enfield,  in  1835,  on  the  subject 
of  noticing  the  Theological  Institute  in  the  Report  on  the  state  of  Religion,  I 
do  not  think  worthy  of  a  place  in  the  history  of  our  polemical  transactions.  I 
was  surprised  that  some  of  the  friends  of  the  Institute  were  not  satisfied  with 
the  notice  of  it  which  the  Report  contained,  more  at  the  remarks  made  in  re- 
ply to  them,  and  most  of  all  that  any  spectator  should  express  a  desire  to  take 
part  in  the  discussion. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  a  consideration  of  the  questions  with  which  you  con- 
clude your  Letters.  Full,  and  may  I  not  hope,  satisfactory  answers  have  al- 
ready been  given  to  some  of  these  questions,  and  it  will  not  be  necessary  for 
me  to  refer  to  them  at  this  time. 

You  inquire ;  "  Was  not  the  Pastoral  Union  formed  for  the  purpose  of  put- 
ting down  the  "New  School  brethren"  by  other  means  than  argument,  be- 
cause argument  was  felt,  to  be  inadequate  to  the  end  ?"  —  No  Sir,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Pastoral  Union,  I  trust  have  a  more  important  object  in  view  than 
that  of  "pitting daum"  their  brethren.  Their  object  is  to  promote  the  cause 
of  truth  and  the  interests  of  Christ's  kingdom.  Because  they  feel  it  to  be 
their  duty  to  bear  testimony  against  what  they  deem  to  be  errors  in  doctrine, 
must  they  necessarily  be  influenced  by  a  desire  to  put  down  those  by  whom 
these  errors  are  embraced?"  Is  it  your  desire  to  put  down  every  man  from 
whom  you  differ  in  opinion,  and  against  whose  errors  you  feel  it  your  duty  to 
protest?  If  so,  then  it  would  seem,  that  the  object  of  your  Letters  is  to  put 
down  all  the  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union.  Argument  has  not  been  "  felt  to 
be  inadequate"  to  the  refutation  of  the  peculiar  views  of  the  "  New  school 
brethren."  On  the  contrary,  it  is  fully  believed  by  the  members  of  the  Pas- 
toral Union,  that  these  views  have  been  triumphantly  refuted  by  those  who 
have  been  engaged  in  the  recent  theological  discussions.     While  arguments 


REV.    LEONARD    BACON.  83 

and  books  of  your  orthodox  brethren  remain  unanswered,  is  it  not  untimely  for 
you  to  talk  of  our  resorting  to  "  other  means  than  argument,  because  argu- 
ment was  felt  to  be  inadequate  to  the  end."  Why  has  not  Griffin  on  Divine 
,  Efficiency  been  answered  before  this  late  period  f.  Why  has  not  Dr.  Wood's 
Letters  received  another  reply  besides  that  ill-tempered  caricature  of  an  an- 
swer published  as  an  anonymous  article  in  the  Christian  Spectator  ?  Why  has 
not  Mr.  Dow's  Pamphlet  been  answered?  And  why  have  many  other  publi- 
cations of  like  character  been  passed  in  silence  ? 

You  ask  ;  "  If  your  party  had  been  able  to  control  the  General  Association, 
are  you  certain  that  the  Pastoral  Union  would  ever  have  been  called  into  be- 
ing?" I  have  yet  to  learn,  that  the  Pastoral  Union  could  not  have  controlled 
the  General  Association,  had  they  in  the  appointment  of  delegates  to  that  body 
abandoned  the  principle  of  rotation  and  adopted  that  of  election.  As  yet  suf- 
ficient evidence  has  not  been  adduced  to  convince  me,  that  a  majority  of  the 
Congregational  ministers  of  Connecticut  have  adopted  the  "  New  Haven  the- 
ology ;"  and  that  the  Theological  Institute  has  not  among  the  ministers  of  this 
State  as  many  friends  as  the  Theological  Department  in  Yale  College.  The 
members  of  the  Pastoral  Union  have  no  wish  to  make  their  brethren,  who 
differ  from  them,  responsible  for  opinions  and  acts  which  they  do  not  approve. 
Consequently  had  they  been  sure  of  always  being  a  majority  in  the  General 
Association,  they  would  not  have  wished  that  body  to  establish  a  new  Theo- 
logical Seminary  in  opposition  to  the  views  and  feelings  of  a  large  and  respect- 
able minority. 

You  inquire  ;  "  Has  not  the  uniform  tendency  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  thus 
far,  been  towards  division  ?"  So  soon  as  the  orthodox  began  to  act  in  self-de- 
fence and  in  defence  of  the  theological  sentiments  of  our  Fathers  against  the 
systematic  and  efficient  exertions  of  their  "  New  School  brethren"  to  change 
the  features  of  New  England  Calvinism  ;  the  cry  of"  division  of  the  churches" 
was  raised.  That  cry  of  "  division"  has  often  been  heard  since,  and  you,  Sir, 
in  your  Letters,  have  given  the  conjectured  "division"  of  our  "  churches  into 
two  contending  and  contemptible  sects,"  a  prominent  place.  Allow  me  to  ask, 
why  were  not  thoughts  of  division  entertained  at  an  earlier  date?  And  permit 
me  to  ask  again,  what  do  you  mean  by  this  question  ?  What  have  the  Pasto- 
ral Union  done  ?  Have  they  said  any  thing  about  division  ?  Have  they  taken 
any  steps  toward  division?  Am  I  to  understand  you,  that  if  the  members  of 
the  Pastoral  Union  do  not  abandon  the  ground  which  they  have  taken,  their 
"  New  school  brethren"  are  determined  either  to  secede  from  them,  or  cast 
them  out  of  their  ecclesiastical  connection  ?  Is  this  your  meaning  ?  And  is 
this  the  determination  of  your  brethren  ?  If  so,  let  us  distinctly  understand  it. 
If  you  do  not  yet  understand  the  views  which  the  Pastoral  Union  entertain  on 
the  subject  of  a  division  of  the  churches  into  two  sects,  you  may  learn  them 
from  the  following : 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  a  Trustee  of  the  Theologictd  Institute  to  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Sprague  of  Albany,  dated  Nov.  1 1, 1833. 

"  It  has  been  falsely  reported,  that  the  ground  which  we  took  in  establishing  a  new  Seminary, 
was  to  withdraw  all  fellowship  with  ministers  of  the  New  Haven  school,  and  to  call  on  the 
churches  to  separate  themselves  at  once,  and  to  treat  them  in  all  respects  as  we  do  the  Unitari- 
ans, in  our  Christian  intercourse.  But  I  need  not  say,  that  this  is  a  misrepresentation,  designed 
to  raise  a  prejudice  in  the  public  mind,  with  the  hope  of  defeating  the  object.  Others  have  heard, 
that  a  certain  anonymous  pamphlet  was  distributed  at  that  Convention  [Convention  at  East 
Windsor]  containing  the  sentiments  which  form  the  basis  of  their  proceedings.  It  is  true  that 
pamphlet  was  distributed  at  the  close  of  the  Convention,  as  it  was  since  at  the  close  of  the  Con- 
sociation of  Hartford  North  ;  but  the  contents  of  that  pamphlet  had  no  more  to  do  with  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  one  than  of  the  other.     And  I  doubt  very  much,  whether  many  of  the  members  of 


84  LETTERS    TO    THE 

that  Convention  knew  a  word  of  its  contents  until  after  they  had  returned  to  their  homes.  What- 
ever  may  be  the  private  opinion  of  individual  members  of  'that  Convention,  concerning  the  doc" 
trines  of  the  New  Haven  school :  the  ground  which  they  have  taken  in  establishing  the  new  Senu 
inary  is  this— tbat  the  ministers  whose  doctrinal  views  are  expressed  in  the  Confession  of  Faith 
published  by  the  Pastoral  Union  of  Connecticut,  have  the  same  right  to  establish  a  Theological  • 
Seminary,  and  to  educate  young  men  for  the  ministry,  and  to  publish  their  own  sentiments,  as 
they  have  at  New  Haven,  Andover,  and  Princeton.  We  claim  only  the  same  privilege  of  do'in? 
our  own  business  in  our  own  way,  as  the  founders  of  other  Theological  Seminaries  have  done  be- 
fore us.  Nothing  more,  nothing  less.  If  they  ask  for  'jur  motives,  each  member  is  of  age  and 
will  answer  for  himself." 

An  extract  from  Dr.  Tyler's  Inaugural  Address. 
*'  Our  object  is  not,  as  has  been  supposed,  to  rend  the  churches,  or  to  break  up  any  of  the  exist, 
ing  ecclesiastical  relations  in  the  State.  And  why  should  it  be  thought,  that  our  enterprise  has 
any  necessary  tendency  to  such  a  result  ?  Has  it  come  to  this,  that  we  cannot  maintain  and  in- 
culcate  our  opinions  without  alienating  our  brethren  from  us,  and  forfeiting  their  confidence  ? 
Must  we  sacrifice  our  principles,  and  surrender  what  we  believe  to  be  the  truth  of  God,  or  cut  in 
sunder  the  bonds  of  Christian  fellowship  ?" 

Such,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  been  the  uniform  testimony,  not' only  of  the  Trustees  of  the  Insti- 
tute, but  of  the  members  of  the  Pastoral  Union;  and  I  have  discovered  no  intimation  of  change 
in  views  and  feelings  on  this  subject.  I  presume  it  is  the  present  expectation  of  every  member  of 
the  Pastoral  Union  to  continue  connected  with  a  District  Association,  and  related  to  the  General 
Association  so  long  as  he  is  an  inhabitant  of  Connecticut.  I  express  it  as  my  deliberate  opinion, 
that  if  the  division  of  which  you  have  so  frequently  spoken,  takes  place,  it  will  be  effected  by  your 
seceding  from  us,  or  by  your  casting  us  out  of  your  ecclesiastical  connection.  But  you  ask  ; 
"  Has  not  the  uniform  tendency  of  the  Pastoral  Union,  thus  far,  been  toward  division  "?  "l  deeply 
regret  the  want  of  harmony  which  exists  among  us,  and  I  fear  what  may  be  its  results.  «'  But 
if  our  religious  community  is  divided  into  parties,  on  whom  does  the  responsibility  lie,  of  having 
caused  divisions  ?  On  those  who  adhere  to  the  views  maintained  by  the  Fathers,  or  those  who 
have  introduced  innovations  ?" 

You  say  ;  "  Since  the  date  when  the  Pastoral  Union  was  formed,  there  has  been  in  Connecticut 
no  doctrinal  discussion  between  "  New  School"  and  "  Old  School;"  yet  has  there  not  been  an  in- 
crease of  party  alienation,  more  painful,  and  far  more  rapid,  than  when  the  controversy  was  in 
progress  ?"  You  will  recollect,  that  the  Pastoral  Union  was  formed  in  the  autumn  of  1833.  In 
June,  1837,  your  own  party  in  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut  declared  ;  "  The  churches 
in  connection  with  the  Association  are  generally  peaceful  and  harmonious.  And  though  among 
ministers  there  arc  shades  of  difference  in  theological  views,  yet  they  are  not  such  as  need  to  pre- 
vent, and  we  are  happy  to  believe  they  will  not  prevent  the  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of 
peace."  In  1838,  Dr.  Taylor  made,  in  the  New  School  General  Assembly,  the  following  state- 
ment; "The  churches  (of  Connecticut)  are  harmonious;  I  suppose,  among  ministers  there  has 
never  been  less  diffeiencc  of  theological  opinion  than  theve  is  to-day.  I  know  we  are  considered 
abroad  as  differing  widely,  and  there  arc  those  among  us  who  think  differently  ;  but  I  give  you 
this  as  my  opinion.  What  are  called  shades  of  difference  are  being  considered  of  less  importance 
among  us."  When  in  1839  you  asked  the  question  ;  "  Since  the  date  when  the  Pastoral  Union 
was  formed — has  there  not  been  an  increase  of  party  alienation,  more  painful,  and  far  more  rapid, 
than  when  the  controversy  was  in  progress  ?"  Had  you  forgotten  the  above  statements  ?  And 
had  you  forgotten  the  solemn  manner  in  which  yeu  had,  in  your  third  Letter,  called  the  Pastoral 
Union  to  account,  and  the  severe  censure  which  you  had  inflicted  upon  them  for  contradicting 
these  statements. 

In  the  close  of  your  last  Letter  you  ask  ;  What  ought  to  be  done  ?  This  is  a  very  serious  ques- 
tion. I  did  intend  to  suggest  a  few  thoughts  in  reference  to  it ;  but  I  have  concluded  it  is  best 
for  the  present  only  to  repeat  your  own  declaration  :  "  Over  this  question  let  us  meditate  and  pray, 
as  men  to  whose  weakness  and  blindness  are  entrusted  in  the  mysterious  providence  of  God,  inter- 
ests of  eternal  moment."     And  may  God  guide  us  in  our  meditations,  and  answer  our  prayers. 

Your  brother  in  Christ. 

GEORGE  A.  CALHOUN. 

Coventry,  March  4,  1840. 


The  reader  will  make  the  following  corrections. — Page  13,  line  from  bottom  20th,  for  origina- 
ted read  originated"  ;  p.  15,  b.  8,  for  to  any,  r.  at  any  ;  p.  16,  t.  21,  for  on  r.  over  ;  p.  28,  b.  5,  for 
devolved  r.  developed  ;  p.  34,  b.  4,  for  The  &c.  r.  That  self-love  or  the  desire  of  happiness,  is  the 
primary  cause  or — p.  35.  t.  11,  for  primary  r.  "  primary  ;  p.  37,  b.  11,  for  but  r.  put ;  p.  40,  b.  17, 
for  generation  r.  regeneration ;  p.  42.  b.  13,  insert  the  before  passage  ;  p.  44,  t.  6,  for  will  r.  may  ; 
p.  53,  t.  24,  for  1834,  r.  1833  ;  do.  b.  14,  for  in  r.  is ;  p.  58,  t.  7,  after  gives,  insert  him ;  do.  b. 
21,  for  de  r.  be  ;  do.  b.  4,  insert  all  before  N.  England  ;  do.  b.  5,  the  word  all  should  be  erased  ; 
65,  b.  21,  gentlemen,  r.  gentleman  ;  69,  t.  21,  before  eternity  insert  all. 


Princeton  Tneok><;ic.il  Sm«MJ»-?KX,1  iVfi  ii? 


1    1012  01082  0258 


DATE  DUE 

I 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.  A. 

